ABSTRACT

Title of Document: THE USE OF ICT IN LEARNING ENGLISH

AS AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE

Sei-Hwa Jung, Doctor of Philosophy, 2006

Directed By: Professor Rebecca L. Oxford

Department of Curriculum and Instruction

The simultaneous impact of globalization, the spread of English and

technological development have transformed our learning and teaching English as a

lingua franca in an unprecedented way (Warschauer, 2004). As a result, both English

and ICT have become essential literacy skills for a growing number of non-native

speakers of English to ensure full participation in the information society.

The study investigated 591 Chinese university students in an inland city in

relation to (a) their technology ownership, usage patterns, and levels of perceived ICT

skills; (b) their motivational orientations to learn English; (c) their perceptions of

English and technology; and (d) their perceived benefits of and barriers to using ICT

in learning English. Findings from the questionnaire, which had both open-ended and

close-ended questions, unveiled not only the students aspirations toward acquiring

English and ICT skills but also problems and challenges they have faced in the age of

globalization. In addition, the current study revealed that the economic and
sociocultural contexts in which the students found themselves greatly influenced their

language learning experience through technology.

Discussing the results of the current study, I echoed recent calls for paradigm

shift in the area of (a) English as International Language (EIL), (b) EIL students

motivational orientations, and (c) the digital divide. By highlighting the vital

importance of nurturing human and social resources, I suggested creating supportive

communities of practice for EIL teachers in a technology-enhanced language

classroom. I also provided pedagogical implications with regard to developing

multiple literacies.
 THE USE OF ICT IN LEARNING ENGLISH AS AN INTERNATIONAL
LANGUAGE

By

Sei-Hwa Jung

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the

University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
2006

Advisory Committee:
Professor Rebecca L. Oxford, Chair
Professor Margaret Ann Kassen
Professor Roberta Z. Lavine
Professor Joseph L. McCaleb
Professor Denis F. Sullivan
 Copyright by
Sei-Hwa Jung
2006
 Acknowledgements

My four-year residency at the University of Maryland has made me realize

that one would never be able to reach the end point of the Ph.D program without

getting tremendous help, support and encouragement from so many individuals. I was

truly blessed indeed to have such a wonderful circle of support. Now it is time for me

to express my deepest appreciation to all of those who helped me, although saying

thank you would be never enough.

First, my most sincere gratitude goes to Dr. Rebecca Oxford, my chair and

advisor, who has watched me grow professionally and intellectually from the very

first day of my doctoral program. Without her continued support and guidance,

nothing would have been possible.

I would also like to give my deepest thanks to all my committee members, Dr.

Margaret Ann Kassen for sharing her expertise in foreign language teaching through

technology and introducing Horizon Wimba, Dr. Roberta Lavine for offering

insightful comments on my proposal and introducing task-based language teaching

to me, Dr. Joseph McCaleb for graciously accepting my last-minute invitation, and Dr.

Denis Sullivan for encouraging me for the past two years.

I am infinitely grateful to Yaru Meng for all her support, generosity, and

friendship. Thank you so much for entering my life in the nick of time, Yaru!

I cant thank enough the seven teachers, Chengbing Cheng, Yajun Zhao,

Jiaguang Pang, Xiaoyan Li, Xiaoying Zhao, Xiaoqian Yan, and Dongmei Ge, for

their generous and immediate help. I owe them many thanks. I also thank Lingmin

ii
(Cathy) Gong for her highly efficient assistance. Finally,no one deserves more thanks

than 591 students participating in this study. I was so impressed by their brilliant

answers.

I would say a big thank you to three women who extended their helping

hands to me while I was suffering for this dissertation, Heather Gorman for her

editing work, Ru Lu for her statistical consulting, and Pamela Hickey for editing

dissertation and shouting Hi from Macedonia.

I thank Donna Bain-Butler, Gloria Park, Soo Jung Suh, Chengbin Yin, and

Ying Zhang for always cheering me up, and all EDCI 798 members for the fall

semester, 2005 for the charm bracelet that I will keep forever!

Finally, I am eternally indebted to my parents for sending their wholehearted

support all these years from a distance. Also, I wish to thank my grandparents, who

place great value on scholarship, for always being proud of me.

iii
 Table of Contents
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents......................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. vii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... x
Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
Background ... 1
Statement of the Problem ... 3
Purposes of Research ... 6
Theoretical Framework ... 7
Research Questions ... 9
Significance of the Study ... 9
Totally new context............................................................................................. 10
Use of new questionnaire.................................................................................... 10
Use of metaphors as a research tool.................................................................... 11
Definitions of Key Terms .......................................................................................... 12
Limitations . 14
Summary of Chapter 1 . 15
Chapter 2 Literature Review....................................................................................... 16
English as an International Language in the Age of Globalization . 16
The Spread of English around the World ........................................................... 16
Converging and Diverging Forces ...................................................................... 20
Evolving Concepts of Language and Literacy . 23
Multiple Literacies .............................................................................................. 23
Electronic Literacies ........................................................................................... 25
Essential Skills in the 21ST Century .................................................................... 27
Technology Use in Education and in Language Learning and Teaching . 28
Technology Use in Education............................................................................. 28
Empirical Evidence of Student ICT Use............................................................. 31
Technology Use in Language Learning and Teaching ....................................... 40
English Language Education and Its Relationship to ICT in China . 42
The History of English Language Education...................................................... 42
English Teaching in China in the Age of Globalization ..................................... 50
Technology-Enhanced English Language Learning and Teaching .................... 52
Summary of Chapter 2 . 60
Chapter 3 Research Methodology............................................................................... 61
Research Questions . 61
Research Design . 62
Rationale for the Research Design...................................................................... 62
Settings................................................................................................................ 63
Instrument ........................................................................................................... 65
Establishing Validity and Reliability of the Study ............................................. 71
Summary of Chapter 3 . 71
Chapter 4 Results of Quantitative Questions .............................................................. 73

iv
Background Information . 73
General Use of ICT . 76
ICT Ownership.................................................................................................... 76
Internet Access.................................................................................................... 81
Weekly Hours Spent Using ICT ......................................................................... 82
ICT Activities...................................................................................................... 83
Self-Perceived Level of ICT Skills ..................................................................... 92
Concerns ........................................................................................................... 109
Use of ICT in Learning English 114
Weekly Hours Using ICT in Learning English................................................. 114
Perceived Usefulness of ICT in Learning English............................................ 115
ICT Preferences in English Courses ................................................................. 116
Impact of ICT Use in English Courses ............................................................. 119
Technology Components in English Courses ................................................... 125
Summary of Key Findings and Conclusion 126
Chapter 5 Results of Qualitative Questions .............................................................. 128
Perceptions about English 128
Motivational Orientations ................................................................................. 129
Metaphors 1 ...................................................................................................... 133
Summary of Perceptions about English............................................................ 137
Perceptions about Technology 137
Metaphors 2 ...................................................................................................... 137
Benefits of Technology Integration in Learning English ................................. 142
Barriers to Using ICT in Learning English....................................................... 144
Summary of Perceptions about Technology ..................................................... 147
Summary of Key Findings and Conclusion 147
Chapter 6 Discussion and Implications..................................................................... 149
Redefining Basic Concepts and Terminology 149
Does the ESL/EFL Dichotomy Still Make Sense? ........................................... 149
Does the Instrumental vs. Integrative Motivation Still Make Sense?............... 151
Does the Binary Concept of the Digital Divide Still Make Sense? .................. 153
Summary of Redefining Concepts .................................................................... 156
Rethinking Human Factor in ICT Integration into the Curriculum 156
The Need for Sustained Training...................................................................... 156
Nurturing Supportive Communities of Practice ............................................... 159
Summary of Developing Human Resources..................................................... 161
Reflecting on Pedagogy: Implications Leading Toward Full Participation in the
Information Society 161
New Literacies in the 21st Century.................................................................... 161
Technology-Based Language Pedagogy........................................................... 163
EIL Pedagogy.................................................................................................... 166
Summary of Pedagogical Implications ............................................................. 168
Concluding Remarks 168
Appendix A: Information and Communication Technology Use and Skills (ICTUS)
for Learning English ................................................................................................. 170
Appendix B A Map of China ................................................................................... 180

v
Appendix C: Consent Form ...................................................................................... 181
Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 182

vi
 List of Tables
4.1. Majors 75
4.2. Self-rating English Proficiency Level 75
4.3. Ownership of Selected Technologies 77
4.4. Technology Ownership by Class 77
4.5. Chi-Square for the Relationship between Class and Desktop Ownership 78
4.6. Chi-Square for the Relationship between Class and PDA Ownership 78
4.7. Technology Ownership by Gender 79
4.8. Chi-Square for the Relationship between Gender and Desktop Ownership 79
4.9. Chi-Square for the Relationship between Gender and Cell Phone Ownership 79
4.10.Chi-Square for the Relationship between Gender and Music Device
Ownership 79
4.11. Technology Ownership by Major 80
4.12. Chi-Square for the Relationship between Major and Desktop Ownership 80
4.13.Chi-Square for the Relationship between Major and Laptop Ownership 81
4.14. Chi-Square for the Relationship between Major and Cell Phone
Ownership 81
4.15. Chi-Square for the Relationship between Major and Music Device
Ownership 81
4.16. Internet Access 81
4.17. Weekly Hours Spent on General Use of ICT 82
4.18. ICT Activities Engaged in by Students in the Descending Order 84
4.19. Differences in Activities using ICT-based on Gender 85
4.20. Activities Engaged by Major 86
4.21. Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Major on
Activities 88
4.22. Activities Engaged by Class 90
4.23. Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Class on Activities 91
4.24. Self-rating ICT Skill Levels 92
4.25. Differences in Self-rating ICT skills based on Gender 93
4.26. Differences in Self-rating ICT skills based on Desktop Ownership 93
4.27. Means and Standard Deviations for Major and Self-rating ICT Skill
Levels 93
4.28. Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Major on Self-rating
ICT skills 93
4.29. Means and Standard Deviations for Class and Self-rating ICT skill
Levels 94
4.30. Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Class on Self-rating
ICT skills 94
4.31. Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regressions of Self-rating
ICT skills on Desktop Ownership, Gender, Class and Major 95
4.32. Means and Standard Deviations for Perceived ICT skills for
Selected Applications 96
4.33. Differences in Perceived ICT Skills Based on Gender 96

vii
4.34. Means and Standard Deviations for Major and Perceived ICT Skills
for Selected Applications 98
4.35. Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Major on ICT
Skills 99
4.36. Means and Standard Deviations for Class and Perceived ICT Skills
for Selected Applications 101
4.37. Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Class on Perceived ICT
Skills for Selected Applications 102
4.38. Differences in Perceived ICT Skills for Selected Applications by Desktop
Ownership 103
4.39. Factors Explaining Perceived ICT Skills for Selected Applications 105
4.40. Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT
Skills for Word Processing 106
4.41. Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT
Skills for Spreadsheets 106
4.42. Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT
Skills for Presentation Software 106
4.43. Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT
Skills for Graphics 107
4.44. Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT
Skills for Video/Audio Files 107
4.45. Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT
Skills for Webpages 107
4.46. Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT
Skills for Blogs 107
4.47. Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT
Skills for Online Library Resources 108
4.48. Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT
Skills for Operating System 108
4.49. Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT
Skills for Computer Maintenance 108
4.50. Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT
Skills for Security 109
4.51. Means and Standard Deviations for Students Concerns 110
4.52. Weekly Hours Spent on ICT Use for Studying English 114
4.53. Means and Standard Deviations for the Effects of ICT Use on Improving
English Skills 116
4.54. Percentages of the Effects of ICT Use on Improving English Skills 116
4.55. ICT Preferences in English Courses 117
4.56. Means and Standard Deviations for Class and ICT Preferences 117
4.57. Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Class on ICT
Preferences 118
4.58. Differences in ICT Preferences by Desktop Ownership 118
4.59. Means and Standard Deviations for Perceived Skills and ICT Preferences 119
4.60. Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Perceived Skills on
ICT Preferences 119

viii
4.61. Means and Standard Deviations for the Impact of ICT in English
Courses 120
4.62. Means and Standard Deviations for Instructors ICT Skills Perceived
by Students 121
4.63. Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Instructors ICT
Skills on ICT Use 122
4.64. Means and Standard Deviations for the Need of ICT Training 123
4.65. Means and Standard Deviations for Class and the Need of ICT
Training 124
4.66. Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Class on the Need
of ICT Training 124
4.67. Means and Standard Deviations for Self-rating Technology Skills and
the Need of ICT Training 125
4.68. Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Self-rating Technology
Skills on the Need of ICT Training 126
4.69. Technology Components Wanted by Students for English Courses 129
5.1. Students Motivational Orientations to Learning English 133
5.2. Metaphors Representing English 138
5.3. Metaphors Representing Computers 140
5.4. Metaphors Representing the Internet 142
5.5. Students Perceived Benefits of Using Technology in Learning English 145
5.6. Students Perceived Barriers to Using Technology in Learning English 169

ix
 List of Figures

2.1 Net Generation Student Expectations and Preferences 35

4.1. Weekly Hours Spent on General Use of ICT 82
4.2. Printing 110
4.3. Computer Age 111
4.4. Network Access 111
4.5. Troubleshooting 112
4.6. Viruses, worms, or Trojan horses 112
4.7. Spam 113
4.8. Technical Assistance and Help 113
4.9. Weekly Hours Using ICT for Studying English 115
4.10. Instructors ICT Skills 121
4.11. Need of ICT Training 123

x
 Chapter 1
Introduction

Background

Unprecedented is the very word one may come across most often in

reviewing numerous news articles, research papers, and many kinds of documents

discussing globalization, information and communication technology (ICT), English

as an International Language (EIL), and the new generation of students. Some of the

quotations including the adjective, unprecedented, are:

The arrival of a global language, English, has altered the balance of

linguistic power in unprecedented way, and generated a whole new set of
attitudes about language and languages. (Crystal, 2004, p. 123)

(The Net Generation) has unprecedented mobility. They are shrinking the
planet in ways their parents could never imagine. Unlike television which
was done to them, they are the actors in the digital world. (Tapscott, 1998, p.
3)

(The new generation) possesses unprecedented levels of skill with

information technology; they think about and use technology very
differently from earlier student cohorts. (Kvavik, 2005, p. 1)

The Web places an unprecedented amount of information at the hands of

individual users all around the globe. (Warschauer, 1999, p. 7)

Information technology infuses all aspects of modern life, and the growth of
digital information continues at an unprecedented rate. (Perry, 2004, p. 28)

1
 Indeed, the way in which the information technology revolution has reshaped

the social landscape of human life (Castells, 2000, p. 1) is unparalleled in history.

The social, cultural, historical, political, and economic transformation, in turn, affects

our daily lives at a remarkable pace. As Giddens (2000) put it,

We are the first generation in this [global cosmopolitan] society, whose

contours we can as yet only dimly see. It is shaking up our existing ways of life,
no matter where we happen to beIt is emerging in an anarchic, haphazard,
fashion, carried along by a mixture of influences. (p. 37)

More importantly, the simultaneous impact of those changes on the global

status of English language and language education brings us new opportunities,

challenges, and besides, a feeling of risk and uncertainty to those who find

themselves in the field of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).

It is widely observed that many people in different parts of the world resisting the

global dominance of the US power have a reluctance to learn English as a second or

foreign language (Phillipson, 1992; Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996). At the

same time, however, a growing number of non-native speakers of English try to

achieve their competitiveness in the global market, and make their voices heard in the

internationalized world by acquiring English as a lingua franca, while still keeping

their mother tongue for unity (English, 2001; Rohter, 2004; Sifakis & Sougari,

2003). For example, a Chilean government official said in an interview with the New

York Times, The quality of the English that will eventually be spoken here may not

rival ShakespearesWell speak English Chilean-style, because the important thing

is to understand English and to be able to use it as a tool in our favor (Rohter, 2004).

It is also the rise of the information-based network society that makes those who are

2
learning English as a foreign language come to see English as a tool that enhances

their ability to take advantage of contemporary information and communication

technology (Warschauer, 2005). In short, both English and ICT, especially to non-

native speakers of English, have become the essential literacy skills of our time

needed to satisfy the constant human desire to communicate with others, to improve

the conditions of work, and to promote full participation in the globalized society

(Murray, 2001; Warschauer, 2000; Wenger, 1998).

Therefore, it is timely and even urgent for the language learning field to

look directly at those issues discussed in relation to use of ICT. The study described

below investigated the overall picture of ICT use and skills among Chinese university

students learning EIL in an inland city. The study included technology not just for

language learning but also for general purposes, since the degree and type of use are

likely to differ for various purposes. Also, the current study attempted to unveil what

acquiring fluency in English and technology meant to the students, and how the

sociocultural contexts in which they find themselves influenced the process of

language learning through technology.

Statement of the Problem

Do you think me a learned, well-read man?

Certainly, replied Zi-gong. Arent you?
Not at all, said Confucius. I have simply grasped one thread which links up
the rest.
Sima Quian, Confucius (as cited in Castells, 2000, p. 1)

It was more than three decades ago when Marshall McLuhan (1962) first

introduced the term, global village, in order to make sense of the impact of

3
information and communication technologies on our daily lives. Since then, we have

witnessed how a technological revolution, bound up with the rise of information-

based society and changing economic climate, influences both public and private

lives of individuals in the age of globalization. Moreover, all these changes are

marching with the spread of English and the Internet at an eye-opening pace,

affecting almost all four corners of the world (Giddens, 2000; Crystal, 2003;

Warschauer, 2000). What living in the 21st century looks like is best described by

McLuhans 20th century quote, Today each of us lives several hundred years in a

decade (McLuhan Associates, 1986, n.p.).

The widespread nature of ICTs and the pervasive belief in the promise of

technology have led to ubiquitous computing environments in the 21st century, at

least in developed countries and to an increasing extent in developing countries,

especially in urban areas. These trends have dramatically reshaped educational

settings in general. In addition, they, interwoven with other social, cultural, political

and economic changes, have significantly affected the skills that learners use to

construct knowledge (Dede, 2005).

In the field of language learning, the computer-assisted language learning

(CALL) research foci have typically been on enhancing input through technology,

using technology to affect proficiency and achievement, providing feedback through

technology, and integrating technologies (see discussion in Zhao, 2005). However,

the role of individuals in the language learning process has not been sufficiently

studied in relation to technology use in language learning (Liu, Moore, Graham &

Lee, 2003).

4
 Moreover, it is acknowledged that sociocultural factors influence other learner

variables in language learning in general (Oxford, 2002) and, ipso facto, in language

learning through technology. Warschauer (2005) similarly pointed out that we can

understand CALL completely only if we look at it with its historical, social and

cultural contexts. However, CALL research has not successfully responded to this

critical issue, as claimed by Egbert (2005); (CALL) happens at different times and in

different economic, cultural, political, social and linguistics realms that embody

different understandings, goals, and standards. CALL research currently does not

address these differences in context well (p. 4). In reality, CALL research has not

paid sufficient attention to economically less- or underdeveloped contexts where

students are still highly motivated to acquire English and ICT skills to improve their

social and economic conditions. In particular, studies conducted in mainland China

have rarely looked at students from the countrys northwestern areas, where

technological and educational resources are limited, compared to major cities in the

coastal regions.

This means, bluntly speaking, that CALL is not in the center of the critical

turn or application of critical theory that dominates much of applied linguistics these

days (see discussion in Norton & Toohey, 2004). This essentially puts CALL out of

the mainstream at a time when CALL must most assuredly place itself at the center.

Any effort made to understand the importance of using new technologies in language

learning and teaching would not be fruitful without ripe discussion on todays

economies and societies.

In addition, despite the high demand for integrating ICT into teaching English

5
these days, its adoption seems still to be going slowly. Of various reasons that hinder

the effective use of technology in teaching and learning, one notable reason is

insufficient empirical research evidence about our students competencies in ICT,

which makes it difficult for teachers to know what students can actually do with new

technologies (Kaminski, Seel, & Cullen, 2003). Students are only able to benefit from

new technologies planned and used appropriately as a part of coherent education

approach (Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, 2000, p.

216). Thus, Kvavik and Caruso (2005) exhort investigators to identify student fluency

in both technology and information, given that technology skills or literacy are a

necessary precursor to information literacy, and that the latter cannot be achieved

without the former (Brandt, 2001, as cited in Kvavik & Caruso, p. 43). Given that

published CALL research is still somewhat limited to desktop computers, Egbert

(2005) also urges researchers to expand the scope of technologies to include any

forms of electronic, chip-driven technology and the software that makes it run (p. 4).

This would include personal digital assistants (PDAs), cell phones, laptops, digital

cameras, scanners, printers, computerized piano keyboards and related software,

according to Egbert (2005), who asserts that these technologies provide language,

culture, and other content, both explicit and implicit, through a variety of modes

including visual, oral, textual, and graphical (p. 4).

Purposes of Research

The general purpose of the study was to explore the use of ICT in learning

EIL among Chinese university students in an inland city. More specifically, the

current study aimed to illuminate (a) students technology ownership, usage patterns,

6
and levels of ICT skills; (b) the relationships among learner demographic

characteristics (e.g., gender, age, major nationality) and ICT use and skills; (c) their

reason(s) to study English, (d) their concepts of computers, the Internet, English and

learning English; and (e) sociocultural contextual information as to their learning ICT

and English.

Theoretical Framework

The current study adopts the concept of Multiliteracies (New London

Group, 1996) as the theoretical underpinning for guiding and informing the whole

procedure of the research. The main idea is to design students social future through

ever-changing multiple literacies and technology, which perfectly fits into the current

study. It also emphasizes taking on a new identity and bridging our old identities to

the new one by the process of learning (Gee, 2003).

Multiliteracies

The term, Multiliteracies coined by New London Group (1996)1, addresses

two major changes in the concept of language use and literacy of our time. The first

change is social, cultural and linguistic diversity, and the second change is the

emergence of new information and communication technologies. These two changes

increasingly influence the pedagogy of English as a foreign language. The first

change, diversity, challenges us to deal with differences in our local and globally

1 In September 1994, a group of professionals gathered in New London, New Hampshire,

U.S.A. to discuss the future of literacy teaching that can respond to the changing social
conditions. Those educators and researchers include: Courtney Cazden, Bill Cope, Norman
Fairclough, James Paul Gee, Mary Kalantzis, Gunther Kress, Joseph Lo Bianco, Allan Luke,
Carmen Luke, Sarah Michaels, and Martin Nakata. To address the ideas developed during the
meeting, they published an article, A pedagogy of multiliteracies: designing social futures,
in the Spring 1996 issue of the Harvard Educational Review.

7
interconnected communities. For example, linguistic diversity makes us negotiate two

different situations as to English: English as a global language and World Englishes.

Another example is, while globalization makes the world more connected than ever,

regionalization and localization (e.g., European Union, Asia-Pacific Economic

Cooperation) are under way as well. The second change, emergence of new

information and communication technologies, is radically altering our way of making

meaning. Meaning is made in interactive, multimodal ways, which requires todays

learners to acquire different sets of literacies such as digital literacy, ICT literacy,

visual literacy, information literacy, in addition to traditional print literacy. Therefore,

the New London group argues that our old pedagogy of a single standard version of

English is not valid anymore. Instead, it is time for us to come up with an open

ended and flexible functional grammar which assists language learners to describe

language differences (cultural, subcultural, regional/national, technical, context

specific, etc.) and the multimodal channels of meaning now so important to

communication (Cope & Kalantzis, 1997, para. 5). In that process, both language

learners and teachers should be active participants sharing responsibility of designing

their future (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000).

In summary, the concept of multiliteracies will be used to expand the view

of language learning in the 21st century, embracing the multiple linguistic and cultural

differences and the use of computer-mediated technology. Furthermore, it is hoped

that the findings of this study can be served as an indicator of multiliteracies in

TESOL and second language education.

8
 Research Questions

This study aimed to answer eight major questions below:

Question 1: What kinds of information and communication technologies (ICT) do the

participants in this study own and have access to?

Question 2: How do they use information technologies for general purposes and for

language learning?

Question 3: How skilled are the students in using ICT?

Question 4: How do learner variables (e.g., gender, class and major) relate to their

information technology use and skills?

Question 5: What are their reason(s) to learn English?

Question 6: How do they perceive English, computers, the Internet, and learning

English?

Question 7: What are their perceived benefits of using ICT in learning English?

Question 8: What are their perceived barriers to using ICT in learning English?

Significance of the Study

Before getting down to a full-blown discussion about the significance of this

study, it is worth addressing Egberts (2005) claim about what Computer-Assisted

Language Learning (CALL) research should entail:

When we talk about CALL research, then we are talking about studies that
take an analytic approach by looking at one or more variables (e.g., learners,
language, context, tools, tasks/activities and peers and teachers) in any
number of ways or studies that look at the system of which these variables

9
 are part, at their interactions and complexities and their effects on one other. (p.
5)

In this regard, it is reasonable to say that the current study perfectly fits into

CALL research in that it looked at learners, contexts, language, and the tools provided

as a whole picture. More precisely, this study unfolded three levels of contextual factors

affecting the process of learning EIL: (a) global situations, (b) regional and/or local

situations, and (c) ICT as a set of learning environments. It is also worth noting that

learners would be the center of discussion. The current study would be significant in the

following reasons:

Totally new context

Given that little or no research in the field of TESOL has investigated the use

of ICT in learning English looking at Chinese university students in an economically

less developed region, this study demystified how the sociocultural and economic

contexts influenced their use of ICT in learning EIL and what language learning

through technology meant to them living in the information society. It was hoped that

the results of the current study would provide researchers and educators with valuable

implications, in relation to teaching and learning EIL through technology.

Use of new questionnaire

This was the first study that employed the Information and Communication

Technology Use and Skills (ICTUS) for learning English (Jung, 2006, see Appendix A),

the modified version of the Student Information Technology Use and Skills in Higher

Education questionnaire developed by EDUCAUSE Center for Advanced Research

10
(ECAR, 2005). Considering meaningful findings from the current study, it is desirable

to replicate this research in different countries, especially where students learn EIL

through technology.

Use of metaphors as a research tool

Employing four open-ended questions that asked for the metaphors of

computers, the Internet, English and learning English provided valuable information

with regard to how Chinese university students in an inland city perceived EIL and ICT.

In the field of second/foreign language education, a number of studies have

proved that using metaphors is a powerful research tool to explore: (a) how learners

perceive their language teachers (Oxford, 2001; Oxford, Tomlinson, Barcelos,

Harrington, Lavine, Saleh, et al., 1998), (b) how learners construct themselves (Ellis,

2001), and (c) how researchers craft theoretical frameworks, research questions,

methodological approaches, and interpretations (Meskill, 2005). As Johnson (as cited in

Meskill, 2005) comments, (through metaphor), our understanding is our bodily,

cultural, linguistic, historical situatedness in and toward our world (p. 27), the

metaphors held by the students in this study will underpin and channel a great deal of

our thinking (Meskill, 2005, p. 26) about their concepts of and attitudes toward ICT

and the English language.

11
 Definitions of Key Terms

Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL): The search for and study of

applications of the computer in language teaching and learning (Levy, 1997, p. 1).

Diglossia: Charles Ferguson (1959) introduced this term, saying a diglossic situation

exists in a society when it has two distinct codes which show clear functional

separation; that is, one code is employed in one set of circumstances and the other in

an entirely different set (p. 87).

Digital Divide: The term is used to address the gap between those with regular,

effective access to digital technologies and those without (Dickard & Schneider,

2005).

English as a Foreign Language (EFL): According to Oxford (2001), a foreign

language is a language studied in an environment where it is not the primary vehicle

for daily interaction and where input in that language is restricted (p. 359).

English as an International Language (EIL): McKay (2002) defines, International

English is used by native speakers of English and bilingual users of English for cross-

cultural communication. International English can be used both in a local sense

between speakers of diverse cultures and languages within one country and in a

global sense between speakers from different countries (p. 132). This term is often

used interchangeably with English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), English as a Global

Language (EGL), English as a world language, or English as a medium of

intercultural communication (Jenkins, 2006; Phan Le Ha, 2005; Seidlhofer, 2003).

12
Globalization: The complex set of processes which result from social interaction on a

world scale. It is useful to distinguish economic, political, cultural, and technological

aspects of globalization, although all four aspects are closely intertwined (Mok &

Welch, 2003).

Information and Communication Technology (ICT): It is defined as a range of

technological tools and resources used to communicate, and to create, disseminate,

store, and manage information (Tinio, 2003). The previously dominant generic term

for interactive electronic media, Information Technology (or simply IT), is now

increasingly being replaced by Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs)

(Richards, 2000).

Informationalism (or Information Age): A technological paradigm based on the

augmentation of the human capacity of information processing and communication

made possible by the revolutions in microelectronics, software, and genetic

engineering (Castells, 2004, p. 11).

Network society: The term was coined by Manuel Castells (2000). Network society is

structured in its dominant functions and processes around networks and current

manifestation is capitalist, but very different from industrial capitalism (Castells,

2000).

Ubiquitous computing: Integrated computation into the environment, rather than

having computers as distinct objects (Hui, 2005; Toporkoff, 2005). In ubiquitous

computing, many computers serve each person (Weiser, 1991).

13
 Limitations

First, since the participants of this study came from one institution, they

cannot be a statistical representation of Chinese university students. The findings of

this study clearly demonstrated university students learning experiences in an inland

city of which economic, sociocultural and educational conditions are quite different

from major cities in a coastal region such as Beijing and Shanghai. In relation to this

fundamental problem, it is worth quoting Boyles (2001) comments:

China is vast geographically and it is impossible to generalize about it

sensibly; it is not a monolithic society, but a complex interlocking web of
often contradictory relationships and interests; it is in a process of rapid
change which instantly converts todays commonsense judgments into
tomorrows aberrant anachronisms. (p. 150)

Second, using self-reported questionnaires has its own weakness caused by

participants awareness of their behaviors, tendency for giving socially favorable

answers, and ability to recall the past events (Johnson & Christensen, 2004; Johnson

& Van de Vijver, 2003). However, it was essential to use a questionnaire to

investigate such a large number of students in northwest China overcoming time and

distance barriers. Also, the studys results showed highly honest answers, to the point

of being painful in some instances.

Third, because of using short-answer open-ended questions, some answers

from the students were too telegraphic to figure out the exact meaning.

Fourth, my role as an outsider might have hindered accomplishing a thorough

interpretation of the data. However, I checked my analysis with native informants

from China throughout the study and tried to do my best to take advantage of my

14
position as an outsider providing balanced etic perspectives. In addition, my in-depth

review of the literature on English language education and ICT in mainland China,

presented in Chapter 2, enormously helped me to better understand the students and

the context in which this research took place.

Summary of Chapter 1

This chapter delineated an overview of the current study. I have discussed the

social, cultural, historical, and economic changes of our time, which has affected our

use of ICT and EIL. First, I presented the problem statement and the study purpose,

pointing out that CALL research has not paid sufficient attention to the organic

relationship between individuals using technology and their society in which

technology-enhanced language learning occurs. Then, I introduced the concept of

Multiliteracies (New London Group, 1996) as the framework of the current study. I

also presented what would make this study a significant contribution to the body of

knowledge, followed by eight major research questions. Last, after listing definitions

of key terms, I described possible limitations of the study.

15
 Chapter 2
Literature Review
The new electronic interdependence recreates the world in the images of a global village.
(McLuhan, 1962, p. 31)

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive review and

synthesis of literature and research related to the theoretical framework, the problems,

and the research questions. Rationale for the study undertaken is also addressed. The

literature review consists of four sections: (a) English as an International Language

(EIL) in the information age, (b) expanded concepts of language and literacy, (c) the

use of ICT in education and in language learning and teaching, and (d) history of

English language education and its relationship to ICT in China.

English as an International Language in the Age of Globalization

The Spread of English around the World

Globalization and technological development have markedly transformed our

ways of learning and teaching English as a lingua franca in the 21st century (Block &

Cameron, 2002; Burns & Coffin, 2001; Warschauer, 2000a). New technologies have

dramatically increased the possibility of interaction and mobility among people

around the globe, overcoming many barriers of time and space. Countries are much

more interdependent than ever in human history in terms of politics, business, and

academics, uniting themselves to various regional and international organizations

(e.g., the European Union, the United Nations, the Organization of Economic

16
Cooperation and Development, and the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation)

(Crystal, 2003, 2004). As a result, Crystal (2003) noted, There are no precedents in

human history for what happens to languages in such circumstances of rapid change.

There has never been a time when so many nations were needing to talk to each other

so muchAnd there never has been a more urgent need for a global language (p.

14). The Economist (1996) predicted even before the wide diffusion of high-speed

internet service, [Electronic communications] have created a need for a global

languageand English will fill that slot (para. 3).

Few would argue against the fact that English has achieved a global status,

becoming a means of international communication in the early 21st century (Brutt-

Griffler, 2002; Crystal, 2003, 2004; McKay, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2001, 2003;

Warschauer, 2000a). According to Crystal (2003), English enjoys a genuinely global

status with a special role that is recognized in every country. English is now an

official language for 85% of about 12,500 international organizations (Crystal, 2003),

the most widely taught as a second and foreign language in the world (Crystal, 2003),

the operating standard for technology, science and medicine (Economist, 1996), and a

global lingua franca of international banking, economic affairs, trade, advertising

global brands, international conferences, international law, science publication,

international tourism, tertiary education, Internet communication, entertainment and

many other sectors (Graddol, 1997). The British Councils (1995) English 2000

Project found that (a) over two-thirds of the worlds scientists read in English, (b)

three quarters of the worlds mail is written in English, (c) 80% of the worlds

electronically stored information is in English, and (d) of the estimated 40 million

17
users of the Internet, the majority communicate in English (Graddol, 1997). In

addition, as Warschauer (2001) points out, in the 21st century, using English is not

only for simple communication, but rather for the kinds of complex negotiations,

collaboration, analysis, critique, and construction of knowledge required by an

information economy and society (p. 56).

As Graddol (1997) suggests in The Future of English?, the awareness of

factors that ensure the spread of English is crucial in order to fully understand the role

English is playing in the information age. What makes a language global is inevitably

related to the power of those who speak the language. Just as Latin swept throughout

the Roman Empire and elsewhere, backed by the military power of Romans and the

religious power of Roman Catholics, the English language established its ruling status

first through the colonial expansion of the British Empire in the 18th and 19th

centuries. More recently, English has promoted and maintained its dominant status all

over the world thanks to the political, economic, and technological power of the

United States (Crystal, 2003). In consequence, for the majority of us living in the

early 21st century, it does not come as a surprise any longer to read the 19th century

Chancellor Otto von Bismarcks statement of the decisive factor in modern history:

The fact that the North Americans speak English (Economist, 1996, para.1).

The number of non-native English speakers has also increased, backed by the

remarkable advances in information technology. Speakers of English as a second and

foreign language outnumber first-language speakers of English. According to Crystal

(2003), the estimated total of native speakers of English is approximately 400 million

in the early 21st century. He also presents some conservative estimates that the

18
number of people speaking English as a second language is roughly estimated 450

million, and the total of 750 million represents speakers of English as a foreign

language. In short, three out of four English users are now non-native speakers

(Crystal, 2004). The growing number of non-native speakers of English begs major

questions such as: (a) What kind of role will speakers of English as a foreign

language play in the future?, (b) What impact will globalization and technological

innovation have on language education?, and (c) If the global dominance of English

will continue throughout the 21st century, how can speakers of English as a foreign

language possibly reap the benefit of using it in a global society?

To answer these questions, one might recall that the worldwide spread of

English, backed by the global penetration of the Internet, parallels the process of

globalization. Moreover, the fast growth of its linguistic power is closely related to

the post-industrial economic order, informationalism (Castells, 2004). The

phenomenon indicates that the English language, the global economy and new

technologies share a similar path in the process of dissemination, which is

characterized as globalization and re-localization, facing an overriding contradiction

between global networks and the struggle for local identity (Warschauer, 2000, p.

512). It is consistent with Giddens (2000) assertion about globalization that not only

pulls upwards, but also pushes downwards, creating new pressures for local

autonomy (p. 31). He adds that globalization squeezes sideways as well, creating

new economic, cultural and political blocks within and across nations. Similarly,

Yano (2001) pointed to the paradoxical nature of globalization,

19
 Economic globalization provides equal access, opportunities and benefits, but
at the same time accelerates the digital divide, the information divide, and the
economic divideAs regional economic development accelerates global
interdependence, that global interdependence accelerates the digital and other
divisions and inequalities rather than building bridges. (p. 119-120)

Converging and Diverging Forces

Both centrifugal and centripetal forces can be found everywhere in recent

days (see Crystal, 2004 and Oxford, Massey, & Anand, 2005 for detailed examples

related to language and language teaching). As for English as a lingua franca, Burns

(2003) argued that it means both compliance and resistance as speakers, native and

non-native, pull in different linguistic directions (p. 22). The number of people

learning English as an international language is rapidly growing throughout the world,

more countries have adopted English as an official language, and American culture

permeates the world accompanied with the spread of American English. In short,

globalization requires mutual intelligibility and common standards (Crystal, 2003;

Graddol, 1997; Yano, 2001). At the same time, however, varieties of English are

developed in different regions, non-native speakers strive for keeping their local

identities, and there is a growing concern about linguistic imperialism that

marginalizes indigenous languages around the world (Canagarajah, 1999; Phillipson,

1992). Kubotas (2002) comments on three dimensions of English language education

in Japan (i.e., increased ethnic, linguistic, and cultural diversity in the local

communities, the prevalence of English, and increased linguistic and cultural

nationalism) clearly manifest two different sides of the same coin the existence of

both converging and diverging forces of globalization. Moreover, the center of

20
gravity has been gradually shifting from speakers of English as a first language to

those of English as a second/foreign language (Crystal, 2003; Yano, 2001). Thus, it

may well say that all English users, both native- and non-native speakers, should have

a right to take a share in the future of English and should be considered as legitimate

owners of English language in the 21st century since language is an immensely

democratizing institution (Crystal, 2004, p. 23).

Furthermore, like the way globalization affects the United States, as it does

other countries (Giddens, 2000), the spread of the English language is not particularly

of great advantage to monolingual, native speakers of English over all bi- or multi-

linguals in the global age. Rather, it is increasingly becoming an opportunity in the

disguise of a threat or challenge, especially to those who learn English as an

international language. In other words, in the age of global networked society and

diglossia (i.e., using English for international communication, and other languages for

local, regional and national communication), the ability to speak two or more

languages may enable one to have a head start over those who speak only English.

Having said that, it is increasingly important to direct our attention to the

centroid shift observed in the field of second/foreign language learning through

technology, from accuracy to accuracy plus fluency, and to accuracy plus fluency

plus agency (Warschauer, 2000b, 2004). As technology advances from the mainframe

computer to the personal computer to the networked, multimedia computer, the

paradigm of CALL-based English teaching and principal objectives has changed,

accordingly. Each phase of CALL development2 is reflected in social, economic and

2
Warschauer (1996) classified the development of CALL into three phases: (a) Behavioristic
CALL in the 60s and early 70s, (b) Communicative CALL in the late 70s and 80s, and (c)

21
technological circumstances in a certain period (see Chapelle, 2001; Levy, 1997;

Warschauer, 1996). For example, the current phase, Integrative CALL, views

language learning as engaging in new discourse communities and developing social

interaction, not merely achieving accuracy and fluency (Warschauer, 2000b). In this

paradigm of CALL, increasing agency and a sense of identity by using new

technologies is considered a prime objective, in addition to authenticity of the input

and authorship of the language learner (Kramsch, ANess, & Lam, 2000). That is,

appreciating human agency, the power to take meaningful action and to see the

results of our decisions and choices (Kramsch et al., 2000, p. 97, quoting Murray), in

the use of English language and information technologies is of vital importance in the

21st century. It is mainly because [the pleasure of agency] has to do with the power

to construct a representation of reality, a writing of history, and impose reception of it

by others (Kramsch et al., 2000, p. 97).

Warschauers (2000a) comment is also noteworthy in this regard: if English

is imposing the world on our students, we can enable them, through English, to

impose their voices on the world (p. 530). To this end, understanding the impact of

individual learner characteristics, ICT, and sociocultural environments on their

language learning process should be the starting point in order to gain power over the

grip of driving forces.

Integrative CALL from the 90s and thereafter.

22
 Evolving Concepts of Language and Literacy

Multiple Literacies

The changing global economy and the rapid development of ICT have

resulted in the critical need for students to possess new 21st century knowledge and

skills (Warschauer, 2000a). For example, the report of enGauge 21st Century Skills

for 21st Century Learners (2003) proposed four skill clusters, digital-age literacy,

inventive thinking, effective communication, and high productivity, which are

critically needed to succeed in the 21st century: First, Digital-Age Literacy includes:

(a) basic scientific, economic and technological literacies; (b) visual and information

literacies; and (c) multicultural literacy and global awareness. Second, Inventive

Thinking is composed of a series of life skills such as (a) adaptability and managing

complexity; (b) self-direction; (c) curiosity, creativity and risk taking; and (d) higher-

order thinking and sound reasoning. Third, Effective Communication consists of (a)

teaming, collaboration, and interpersonal skills; (b) personal, social and civic

responsibility; and (c) interactive communication. Last, High Productivity involves

skills that increase ones chance of success in the workforce, such as (a) prioritizing,

planning and managing for results; (b) effective use of real-world tools; and (c)

ability to produce relevant, high-quality products. The technology revolution in

todays information society brings us a new opportunity to get involved in every

aspect of life and raises the bar on the competencies demanded in the 21st century

(North Central Regional Education Laboratory, 2003; Kellner, 2000).

Moreover, the concept of literacy has evolved and dramatically expanded

due to rapid social, cultural and technological changes of our time (Crulckshank,

2004; Daley, 2003; Kasper, 2000; Kellner, 2000; Leu, Kinzer, Coire, & Commack,

23
2004; New Media Consortium, 2005; New London Group, 1996; Warschauer, 2001).

In light of this situation, Kellner (2000) claimed that new technologies and cultural

forms require new skills and competencies, and if education is to be relevant to the

problems and challenges of contemporary life it must expand the concept of literacy

and develop new curricular and pedagogies (p. 249). In fact, we can no longer afford

to view literacy as a set of context-neutral, value-free skills, nor limit literacy to the

ability to read and write. Instead, we must become aware that literacies are socially

constructed and multifaceted. Thus, the process of becoming literate can be

understood as acquiring a variety of skills one needs to fully participate in all aspects

of modern society (Kasper, 2000; Kellner, 2000).

In responding to the paradigm shift caused by the rapidly changing world,

leading scholars developed new concepts of language and literacy. For example, the

New London Group (1996) coined the word, multiliteracies, to address two issues

related to textual multiplicity: (a) the expansion of communications channels and

mass media, and (b) increasing cultural and linguistic diversity. The members of the

group also proposed the four elements that constitute the pedagogy of multiliteracies,

which includes:

(1) situated practice (i.e., immersion in meaningful practices in a community of

learners and the utilization of authentic discourse)

(2) overt instruction (i.e., the introduction of explicit metalanguages)

(3) critical framing (i.e., critical interpretation of the cross-cultural

communication and social contexts), and

24
 (4) transformed practice (i.e., transferring meaning to other contexts)

Pointing out that what learners need to know is changing, they argued that

teachers are responsible for creating access to the evolving language of working,

public and private lives, and engaging learners in designing their social futures. That

is, in their multiliteracies framework based on the concept of design, both learners

and teachers are active participants in social change (i.e., learners as designers of

social futures and teachers as designers of learning processes and environments).

Another example of the expanded concept of literacy comes from the New

Media Consortium (2005)s Report of the 21st Century Literacy Summit. It presented

six characteristics of 21st century literacy. That is, the 21st century literacy

z is multimodal,
z includes creative fluency as well as interpretive facility,
z means learning a new grammar with its own rules of construction,
z encourages interactive communication,
z implies the ability to use media to evoke emotional responses, and
z has the potential to transform the way we learn.

Electronic Literacies

Aligned with those concepts of multiple literacies above, Warschauer (1999)

also suggested considering electronic literacies, which refer to the reading and

writing, and the knowledge, skills, and practices involved with the electronic medium

(e.g., information literacy, computer-mediated literacy and multimedia literacy) since

we are going through a fourth revolution in human communication following the first

three revolutions, language, writing and print. In other words, just as the invention of

printing revolutionized reading and writing practices in Renaissance Europe, so are

25
todays desktop and electronic publishing accelerating changes in our notion of

literacy, apparently, in a much faster way. Consequently, reading is now seen as a

dynamic process of locating, interpreting, and criticizing information reflecting

particular sociocultural contexts, as well as creating knowledge from various

resources, not merely an activity of decoding information. Warschauer (1999, 2001)

addressed five essential skills in reading the digital screen: (a) finding the information

to read in the first place; (b) rapidly evaluating the source, credibility and timeliness

of information; (c) making navigational decisions quickly; (d) making decisions as to

the information storing; and (e) organizing and retrieving saved information.

The writing skills needed for effective online communication have been

changed as well, including (a) integrating texts, graphics, audio-visual material into a

multimedia presentation; (b) writing in hypertext genres; (c) using internal and

external links to communicate a message well; (d) writing for unknown readers on the

Web; and (e) writing in various forms and circumstances of computer-mediated

communication (Warschauer, 1999, 2000b). Moreover, the distinction between

speech and writing has been blurred in cyberspace, which makes them converged in

many ways (e.g., instant messages, email, and chat groups) (see discussion in Crystal,

2004). Thus, given that the concept of literacy always echoes the interests and values

that particular societies, cultures, and context emphasize, one can reasonably

conclude that 21st century literacy pedagogy should center on developing new forms

of multiple literacies, highlighting the role of information and communication

technologies (Kellner, 2000; Warschauer, 1999).

26
Essential Skills in the 21ST Century

Furthermore, it becomes evident that the fast-growing information

technology and the global network society have challenged us to reconceptualize

international language use and second/foreign language learning and teaching

(Cameron, 2002; Crystal, 2001, 2004; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Sifakis & Sougari,

2003; Warschauer, 1999, 2001). In relation to the worldwide spread of the Internet,

Warschauer (2001) noted the concept of language and literacy has been reframed in

two significant ways. First, due to the advent of online communication and the

development of new technologies, non-native speakers of English now have greater

communicative opportunities than ever in history in a situation of diglossia on the

Internet (p. 54). Thus, it is increasingly important for students to be able to harness

cultural-linguistic pluralism and media diversity (p. 156) while using English for

global interaction. Secondly, a variety of digital media and the growing diversification

of linguistic forms and genres have repainted the landscape of second or foreign

language learning and teaching. For example, both asynchronous (e.g., email,

discussion boards, mailing lists, and blogs) and synchronous (e.g., instant messaging,

videoconferencing, chat rooms, and Multi-User Domains) computer-mediated

communications (CMC) enable students to hone their skills in reading, writing, and

speaking at the same time, and get actively involved in one-to-one, one-to-many or

many-to-many communication environments, free from the constraints of time and

space. Besides, the nature of hypertext reading and writing on the Internet requires

students to learn (a) various types of electronic literacy in support of print literacy and

vice versa, (b) the types of genres and rhetorical structures used in particular media, (c)

27
cultural and dialectical differences for particular audiences, performing purposeful

activities (Warschauer, 1999).

Todays students learning English as a foreign language come to perceive

both the English language and information technology as a means to read the world

(Freire & Macedo, 1987, p. 37) and have an impact on the world by using them, not an

end in itself (Warschauer, 2004). Therefore, a new expanded conceptual framework as

to what kind of foreign language literacy students should acquire is urgently needed.

That framework should also reflect the role of emerging information and

communication technologies in social, cultural, political and economic transformation,

which in turn has a real impact on changes in the characteristics of foreign language

literacy in the 21st century. New wine should be served in a new bottle.

Technology Use in Education and in Language Learning and Teaching

Technology Use in Education

It is increasingly assumed that we are entering a ubiquitous computing era. As

might be expected, a ubiquitous network society will define our time in many ways,

especially in technologically advanced countries. Astonishingly, it was more than a

decade ago when Mark Weiser introduced the vision of ubiquitous computing, roughly

the opposite of virtual reality, which forces the computer to live out here in the world

with people functioning invisibly in the background, and enables people move around

and interact with computers (Hui, 2005; Toporkoff, 2005). Weiser (1991) predicted that

computers would disappear into the background and become a part of the natural

human environment, just as people use things without thinking after learning

28
sufficiently3. Likewise, Oblinger (2005a, 2005b) indicated that, for the Net Generation,

technology itself has disappeared. In fact, when asked about what kind of technology

they used, members of the Net Generation were puzzled by what the question really

meant. Instead, they came up with what they could do with technology (Oblinger,

2005a). It is quite apparent that todays college students have been surrounded by and

permanently connected with information technologies. Moreover, they interact with

digital media almost everywhere, and using those media becomes a second nature. In

short, they take technology for granted as a central part of their lives (Frand, 2003;

Kvavik, 2005).

In the field of education, the 2005 Horizon Report published by the New

Medium Consortium (2005b) presented six technological areas that remarkably will

emerge in higher education within the next one to five years. The first category is

Extended Learning, which refers to augmenting traditional instruction with the support

of new communication tools such as blogs, wikis, and instant messaging. Ubiquitous

Wireless is the second category. The rapid penetration of wireless networks into

campuses has allowed students to use more portable devices (e.g., cell phones, MP3

players, and laptops) in their learning, to overcome the constraints of time and space,

and to increase sharing information and collaboration. The area of Intelligent Searching

comes third. Numerous search engines, metacrawlers, online directories and other

search agent tools have supported locating, organizing and retrieving information more

effectively these days. The fourth area is Educational Gaming as a learning tool. With

3
This idea is pretty much related to the concepts many scholars in different fields of study
have already proposed, such as Herb Simons compiling, TK Gibsons visual invariants,
Hans-Georg Gadamers the horizon, Martin Heideggers ready-to-hand, Michael
Polanyis tacit dimension, and John Seely Browns the periphery (Weiser, 1991).

29
new sophisticated technologies available, games and simulations are considered to have

huge potential for promoting peer-interactions, motivation, critical thinking skills,

problem-solving ability. The fifth area is Social Networks and Knowledge Webs. Social

networking tools and websites promise effective knowledge management, collaboration

and cooperative decision-making in classroom settings. In addition, knowledge webs

serve as a research tool that lets students hold the responsibility for the given

information space. Context-Aware Computing/Augmented Reality is the final promising

area. Context-Aware computing refers to computing devices and applications that can

perceive situations in which the user is located and make decisions accordingly (e.g., a

context-aware mobile phone). Augmented Reality is the term for a combination of the

virtual and the real viewed by technology devices that show a real object or place with a

generated virtual scene (e.g., 3D interactive headgear). Both context-aware computing

and augmented reality are promising areas in that they can enable students to expand

their learning spaces and experiences, and apply their information and knowledge to the

real world.

To help pedagogy keep pace with technological advancement with sound

education for a new generation of students, however, has been a daunting challenge to

higher education. As Kvavik and Caruso (2005) put it,

A great unspoken fear in the halls of higher education is that these digital
sophisticates will arrive at our institutions to find aging technologies, legacy
systems, congested (or bandwidth-shaped) networks, and decidedly
unsophisticated purveyors of institutional IT services-or even worse, a
technologically unsophisticated faculty who will curb their enthusiasm for
cyberspace (p. 5).

30
 Recognizing the problems has led a growing number of educators and

researchers to make enthusiastic efforts to investigate the actual conditions of students

information technology use and skills, in the hope that it would shed light on students

growing needs and expectations for the use of technology in their learning

environments.

Empirical Evidence of Student ICT Use

The 2004 and 2005 EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR)

(Caruso, Kvavik & Morgan, 2004; Kvavik, 2005; Kvavik & Caruso, 2005) showed

noteworthy findings with regard to undergraduate students use of information

technology to enhance their learning experience. In 2004, they launched the first study

on how students use technology driven by four major questions: (a) What kind of

information technologies do students use, and what are their preferences? (b) With what

levels of skill are they using these technologies? (c) How does this use contribute to

their undergraduate experience? (d) What value does the use of information technology

add in terms of learning gains? The researchers employed multiple ways to collect data,

which involved literature review, review of other higher education ICT surveys, review

and comparison with ECAR Faculty Use of Course Management Systems study,

quantitative survey of 4,374 students from 13 institutions in the United States, and

qualitative interviews with 132 students and 23 administrators. Of 4,374 students who

replied to the survey, 95% were 25 years old or younger, and 95% were full-time

students. The majority of them (81%) were white, consisting of 38.8% male and 61.2%

female students. As for hardware ownership, almost all students (93.4%) owned a

computer, a personal desktop (62.8%) and/or a laptop (46. 8%), and 82% of them had a

31
cell phone. The rates of personal digital assistant (PDA) and smart phone purchases

were not significant. Laptop ownership was higher for freshmen than for seniors, and

gradually increasing. With regards to the use of IT applications, it was reported that

virtually all of them used computers for writing documents (99.5%), emails (99.5%),

surfing the Internet for pleasure (97.2%) and classroom activities (96.4%), which

indicates that the students primary use of computers was for communication and study.

It turned out, however, that they did not frequently use computers for specialized

applications (e.g., creating webpages, creating video/audio). Similar findings emerged

when looking at hours of using ICT. That is, the students spent a great deal of time on

entertainment and communication activities while very little time on specialized

applications (less than an hour per week). When asked about their level of skills, the

students rated themselves as highly skilled in e-mail, instant messenger, word

processing and web surfing and least skilled in graphics, creating web pages, and

creating and editing audio and video. Generally, the students showed a tendency to

overestimate their level of skills, which was confirmed by the qualitative interviews

indicating insufficient application knowledge or problem solving skills. Some of the

findings were not consistent with their expectations. For example, the students

preference for ICT in the classroom was not as high as had it been expected, showing

that they preferred classes with moderate use of ICT, instead. This indicated that the

students saw ICT as a tool that could be an asset only if appropriately used, not a

panacea. The majority of the students had taken a class using Course Management

Systems (CMS) (83%) and had positive experiences using CMS (76.1%), especially for

finding a syllabus (95%), for online reading (94.7%), and for tracking grades (89.4%).

32
The primary benefits of using ICT in the classroom turned out to be convenience and

control. Surprisingly enough, however, only 12.7% of the students answered that the

most valuable benefit was improved learning.

The 2005 ECAR Study was basically a longitudinal extension of the 2004 study

of Students and Information Technology, with a similar focus on what kinds of

information technologies the students were using, what levels of skill they possessed,

how ICT use contributed to their learning experience, and what value the use of ICT

added to their learning. It involved a web-based survey of 18,039 freshman and senior

students from 63 colleges and universities in the United States, interviews of 82

undergraduate students at seven institutions, and interviews with 20 instructional

technology support staff. In addition to these, the ECAR research team carried out a

literature review, reviewed U.S.-based and international surveys, and of most

importance, used the results of the 2003 ECAR study of Faculty Use of Course

Management Systems and the 2004 ECAR study of Students and Information

Technology as comparative data for student and faculty perceptions about their ICT

experiences. With regard to technology ownership, the findings indicated that laptop

purchases were increasing, especially among freshman students, compared to the results

of the 2004 study. Of the participants, 96% reported they owned a computer and 55% of

them owned a laptop. Ownership of other technologies such as cell phones, PDAs, and

electronic music devices was rising as well, suggesting student mobility and interest in

communications. The study also revealed that broadband access has penetrated quite

fast. Interestingly, it was found that the use of dial-up versus broadband access was

related to the students perception of technology use in the classroom and preferences

33
for technology-enhanced courses. In other words, Modem users appeared to have more

problems in using technology and were less interested in taking technology-enhanced

courses than those who had broadband access. In relation to usage patterns, almost all

students used computers for writing documents (99.7%), sending email (98.9%), and

surfing the Internet for their coursework (98.4%). Moreover, a high percentage of the

students actively used computers for accessing library resources (88%), instant

messaging (81%), downloading music or videos (75%), online shopping, (71%), and

playing games (61%). The activities they were least engaged with were creating Web

pages by using software (24%) and creating and editing video/audio (24%). In addition,

the students spent between 11 and 15 hours per week using computers, on average.

Generational issue and gender differences emerged in relation to the use of ICT for

recreational purposes. For example, freshmen were more likely to use instant messaging,

play computer games, and download music or videos than seniors. Also, male students

were more likely to play computer games, and own electronic music devices and

wireless adapters than female students. In addition, both the 2004 and 2005 study found

that ICT application usage and skill levels were closely related to a students major,

which implies that academic requirements might help the students move beyond basic

types of functionality. As for the students perceived benefit of technology used in

courses, the 2005 results were consistent with the 2004 study. The students came up

with (a) convenience, (b) connection (communication with the instructor and other

students), (c) control (management of course activities), and (d) improved learning as

primary benefits of ICT use. Based on that framework, the research team classified

34
student activities into four groupings. (see Figure 2.1). In summary, five themes

emerged from the 2005 study.

(1) College students live with abundant technology and networks.

(2) College students prefer moderate ICT use in their courses.

(3) College students are comfortable with a basic set of technologies and less

comfortable with more specialized technology applications.

(4) College students see technology in the classroom as supplemental to their

course experience, not as transformational. They still prefer face-to-face

interaction with their instructors and classmates.

(5) Core ICT skill levels are comparable across class status (e.g., freshmen vs.

seniors).

35
 I. CONVENIENCE II. CONNECTION

* Technology and online resources * Mobile electronic connections

readily available
* Fast response timeImmediacy
* Technology, services, and
resources available anytime and
anywhere
* Converged devices
* Networks and technical support
available at all time
* Multiple devices and media that
are personal, customizable, and
portable
* Always networked for
communications
* Members of their communities
reachable anywhere and anytime
* Social- work in teams

III. CONTROL IV. LEARNING

* Multitasking * Rich media and visual imagery

* Customization including the ability to integrate
* Focused on grades and virtual and physical
performance * Inductive discovery experiential
* Manage the undergraduate and participatory
experience * Real-time engagement
* Control the when and where of
social interaction

Figure 2.1
Net Generation Student Expectations and Preferences (Kvavik & Caruso, 2005, p. 11)

These findings are consistent with the Pew Internet and American Life Project

research on the impact of Internet use on college students academic and social

experiences, undertaken three years earlier. In this US-based study, using surveys and

observations, three major findings emerged (Jones, 2002). First, college students are

heavy users of the Internet. The majority of them (72%) check email at least once a day

and two-thirds use at least two email addresses. They are twice as likely to have

downloaded music files and use instant messaging on an average day, compared to the

all Internet users. Second, college students believe that the Internet has enhanced their

36
education. About 80% of college students agree that Internet use has a positive impact

on their academic experience; nearly three quarters of them say they use the Internet

more often than the library; and two-thirds are on one or more academic-oriented

mailing lists related to their studies. They email their professors to set up appointments

(62%), discuss grades (58%) or assignments (75%), and report their absences (65%).

Half of the students that had taken an online course said, however, that they learned less

than in a face-to-face one. Third, college social life has been changed by the Internet.

Approximately 42% of college students use the Internet primarily to communicate

while only 10% of them use the Internet for entertainment. However, they reported that

they prefer using the phone instead of the Internet to communicate with friends. In

summary, connectivity, interactivity and relevance are of utmost importance to todays

college students in the U.S. in using IT for both their academic and social lives (Frand,

2000; McNeely, 2005; Roberts, 2005).

Student Technology Skills

Whether the tech-savvy college students arrive at higher education with the

good ICT skills needed for their study and/or whether they highly demand great use of

technology in teaching and learning is a different story. According to the 2005 ECAR

study, the students skills with information technologies and applications vary. The

students rated themselves as highly skilled in word processing, computer operating

systems, and presentation software. However, they rated themselves as least skilled in

advanced technology and applications such as creating graphics, Web pages, and

37
video/audio. When it comes to problem solving, the qualitative data indicates that the

students do not seem to possess sufficient skills to deal with problem solving, new

applications and troubleshooting their computers. In addition, the transferability of their

skills from entertainment to their use of technology for academic purposes remains

dubious (Kvavik & Caruso, 2005).

Concerning issues about students computer-based skills, two studies of

undergraduate students at Southwestern University and Colorado State University

provide a glimpse of college students information technology fluency. To investigate

students perceived information technology fluency, their technology strengths and

weaknesses, and technology use, McEuen (2001) conducted a Web-based questionnaire

study with 300 students (108 males and 192 females), and then had follow-up

interviews with 40 students for additional information. The students, enrolled in

Southwestern University, a small, liberal arts university in Texas, were administered a

10-Likert scale self-assessment questionnaire that asked about their foundational

concepts, contemporary skills and intellectual capabilities. The responses showed that

gender differences existed in computer use patterns and perceived ICT skill levels.

Female students mostly use computers for communication (48%) while male students

use computers primarily for entertainment (44%). The majority of male students (75%)

showed a high degree of (probably to absolutely, scale 8 -10) comfort and confidence

when using new technologies whereas less than a half of female students (48%) felt

very comfortable and confident in dealing with new technologies. Furthermore, the

follow-up interviews revealed that the students were not well-equipped with

contemporary skills and knowledge of information technology, in opposition to

38
pervasive myths about the generation growing up digital. Surprisingly enough, 58% of

the students never created Web pages, and 61% of them never designed or worked with

graphics. In addition, they did not seem well-informed about the computer operations,

networks, computer security, electronic viruses, technology copyright issues, and

netiquette. When it came to solving computer problems and learning new features, the

students responded that they preferred figuring it out on their own or asking a friend or

family member. They reported that they did not feel like reading manuals, calling a help

desk, or getting access to online resources and knowledge bases. The concept of

learners as problem solvers and independent learners that surfaced in this research is

connected with what Emrich (2004) said about the Gamer Generation; Being forced to

learn the rules through trial-and-error, observation, and hypothesis testing is the essence

of inductive discovery. RTFM (Read The F-ing Manual) is a term of derision (p. 9).

A similar picture of students self-determined ability to use information

technology is provided by Kaminski, Seel and Cullen (2003), a survey study with 1,933

freshman students at Colorado State University. While the majority of the students

indicated their familiarity with basic IT-based knowledge and skills such as using email,

the Web, and Microsoft-type of software, a significant number of them still lacked

advanced skills in using Web development-type software and programming software,

and information gathering. Of the respondents, 82% said they had the ability to

download and install software, 46% said yes to the ability to download and install plug-

ins, and 41% responded yes to their ability to download and read pdf files. Pointing to

the inconsistency in students ICT knowledge and skills, results from this study

suggested that it is crucial to create awareness of the digital divide in IT-based

39
knowledge and experience that existed among freshman students. Increased awareness

of the current state, in turn, would help educators find the best way to address the

students specific needs, integrate technology into the curriculum, and implement

information technology-related initiatives (Kaminiski et al., 2003; McEuen, 2001;

Rickman & Grudzinski, 2000).

Technology Use in Language Learning and Teaching

According to Warschauer (2000b, 2004), the innovative development and fast

spread of the ICTs have resulted in ten important shifts in our daily lives related to

computer-assisted language learning: a move (a) from phone-based to wireless

communication, (b) from dial-up Internet connections to permanent, direct online

connections, (c) from the use of mainly personal computers to the use of portable

computing and online devices (e.g., laptops, personal digital assistances and cell

phones), (d) from narrowband to broadband, (e) from expensive personal computing

systems to widely affordable computers and other hardware, (f) from seeing the Internet

as an exclusive form of communication and information to viewing it as a mass form of

communication accessible to the world, (g) from text-based information and

communication to audiovisual forms of information and communication, (h) from use

of English as the main online language to multilingual Internet use, (i) from non-native

to native users of information technology (e.g., children growing up with digital media

and having native-like fluency in online communication), and (j) from the language

laboratory to the classroom as a result of making computers and wireless access

available almost everywhere.

These shifts have brought about new contexts, new literacies, new genres, new

40
identities, and new pedagogies in the field of TESOL (see Warschauer, 2000b). That is

to say, recent technological revolution allows both language learners and teachers to

have multi-tasking experiences, involving in its fullest form four modes- listening,

speaking, reading and writing (Crystal, 2004, p. 93). Learners of English as a foreign

language have had unparalleled opportunities to practice English and engage with

authentic real-world contexts of language use by making the most of new emerging

technologies (Kramsch & Thorne, 2002).

In fact, the range of emerging information and communication technologies

used in the field of language education is fast growing, and language professionals are

getting more creative and adaptive in using new technologies in their classroom.

Students acceptance and use of new technologies in formal and informal language

learning are also noticeably increasing (Godwin-Jones, 2005). Yet, there is still room

for creativity and flexibility in making the most of ICT to nourish the language learning

experience of the Net Generation. The idea of language partnering and cultural

exchange through instant messengers, email, cell phones, electronic message boards,

video conferences, moblogs is not totally new, but has been proved by numerous

research as a very effective way of indulging language learners in the target language

and culture (Chism, 2003; Greenfield, 2003; Hertel, 2003; Jordan, Heredia, & Aguilera,

2001; Katz, 2001) The use of webquests, simulations, educational games, and virtual

field trips online is gradually increasing as well (see Pururshotma, 2005) for his

commentary on edutainment) although little research endeavor has been made to

unearth the valuable experience of using those materials. Moreover, the use of

disruptive technologies (e.g., skype and podcasting) in language teaching and learning

41
has made eye-opening growth in a couple of years. For example, recent success stories

concerning the use of iPod in language education from the Grand Island School District

in Nebraska and Duke University are quite encouraging (Duke University, 2005;

Godwin-Jones, 2005).

It is very true that learners capacities are enhanced by the interplay between

learners abilities and the tools they use (Commission on Behavioral and Social

Sciences and Education, 2000). However, looking only at the interaction between

technology and language learners is never enough, and even dangerous in the

information age. In every case, we should take language learners thoughts, behaviors,

motivations, cultures, experiences, and understanding into consideration as well. In

other words, a deep understanding of the student experience of ICT and attitudes and

behaviors it induces (Breen, Lindsay, Jenkins, & Smith, 2001, p. 97) and essential

attributes for the ideal learning situations (Foreman, 2003, p. 14) are crucial for

making the most of new technologies and reaping the benefit from using them in

language learning and teaching.

English Language Education and Its Relationship to ICT in China

The History of English Language Education

The status of the English language in the Peoples Republic of China has been

full of vicissitudes, reflecting the countrys historical, social, political and economic

convulsions that the country has experienced since 1949, the year when the civil war

ended (Adamson, 2002, 2004). As maintained by Adamson (2002), the English

language has been perceived as the tongue of military aggressors, barbarians,

42
imperialists and virulent anti-Communists, as well as of trade partners, academics,

technical experts, tourists, and popular culture (p. 231). In other words, there have

been ambivalent sentiments, attitudes and values attached to English, both as a threat

to the nations identity and traditions, as well as a conduit for promoting the

modernization of the country (Adamson, 2002, 2004; Adamson & Morris, 1997; Lam

& Chow, 2004; Zhaoxiang, 2002). Thus, it would be no exaggeration to claim that the

history of English language education in China, as the least five decades, is a mirror

of Chinas history and of its relationship with the rest of the world.

Adamson (2002, 2004) classified five distinctive phases to discuss changes in

the English language curriculum in China since 1949; (a) Phase 1 (1949-1960), the

Soviet influence; (b) Phase 2 (1961-1966), quality in English language education; (c)

Phase 3 (1966-1976), the Cultural Revolution; (d) Phase 4 (1978-1993),

modernization under Deng Xiaoping; and (e) Phase 5 (1993 onwards), expansion of

English language education based on globalization. In each phase, policy documents,

syllabi, teaching materials, pedagogical approaches, curricula, classroom practices

and students learning experiences remarkably differ, influenced by the sociopolitical

climate of the time (Adamson, 2004; Lam, 2002; Lam & Chow, 2004).

During the first phase between 1949 and 1960, the period that emphasized the

restoration of the country after the conflict with Japan and the civil war, Russian was

the dominant foreign language due to the countrys political and economic ties with

the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) (Adamson, 2004). The prestige status

of Russian at that time is evident from these facts, Russian departments and Russian

training courses were established in higher education, national plans to teach Russian

43
and train teachers were announced and university students were required to learn

Russian (Lam & Chow, 2004). Despite its low official status and the anti-US

sentiment that prevailed in China, English was not completely put aside because the

Chinese government recognized the role of science and technology transfer,

diplomacy and transmission of political messages (Adamson, 2004, p. 75). English

was taught in the Beijing Foreign Language Institute established in 1949, and the

draft syllabus for teaching English in the secondary school was issued in this period.

The politicization of English teaching and the Grammar-Translation Method, which

stressed written language and memorization, were the key features of English

language education during this phase, heavily influenced by the Soviet Union

(Adamson, 2002, 2004).

In the second phase from 1961 to 1966, as a result of the Sino-Soviet split and

new national priority given to economic development, Russian came to lose its

popularity, and the main foreign language status was taken up by English. English

gained importance in promoting international relationships, cultural exchanges, and

scientific knowledge (Adamson & Morris, 1997), as well as innovative experiments

in developing new curricula were carried out in this First Renaissance period of

English language teaching (Adamson, 2002, p. 233). The syllabus and materials for

both English majors and non-English majors at colleges and universities were

published in 1961 and 1962. Although the main emphasis of the English syllabus was

placed on love of the Communist party and the people, political messages were

reduced in textbooks. The Audio-lingual method, which entailed sentence-patterns

drills, oral dialogues, read-aloud practices, and habit-formation learning, began to

44
appear on the stage in this period.

However, the Cultural Revolution, which started in 1967, wiped out English

language education in China. The government denounced English as the language of

enemies and condemned English learners and teachers as bourgeoisie intellectuals

and/or traitors (Adamson, 2002, 2004; Adamson & Morris, 1997). The slogan, Its

possible to bring about revolution even without learning ABC, implies the

deteriorating status of the English language in the third phase, between 1967 and

1976. In spite of China becoming a member of the United Nations in 1971 and the

Sino-American dialogues on commercial, cultural, and educational exchanges in 1972,

the full re-emergence of English on the curriculum was attained only after the end of

the Cultural Revolution and the death of Mao Zedong in 1976 (Lam & Chow, 2004).

Deng Xiaopings announcement of Four Modernizations (i.e. the

modernizations in the field of agriculture, industry, science and technology, and

defense), and the subsequent Open Door Policy led to made significant endeavors to

restore the English language curriculum (e.g., publication of new syllabi and

materials, recruitment of foreign teachers, support for foreign language teaching in

primary and secondary schools, and plans to train teachers) during the fourth phase,

from 1978 to1993 (Bolton & Tong, 2002; Hui, 2001; Lam & Chow, 2004; Wang,

2004). Dengs quote appearing in the 1982 English syllabus, Education has to be

oriented towards modernization, the outside world and the future, manifests strong

intentions to reform and modernize the nation, achieve economic success, acquire

knowledge and information, and foster international understandings through English

language education. Therefore, it seems natural that the English language regained its

45
high official status as a valuable tool for acquiring technological expertise and for

dealing with foreigners (Adamson & Morris, 1997, p. 20). With the influences from

the Western countries, pedagogical approaches gradually moved toward oral practice

in contextualized situations and students independent learning, although traditional

Chinese approaches such as memorization and focus on accuracy and written

language remained dominant. In addition, several monumental events and work

relating to English language teaching were accomplished in this period: (a) the first

conference on Applied Linguistics and ELT was held in Guangzhou in 1980; (b)

English became the main foreign language in secondary school in 1982; (c) the

College English Syllabus began to be implemented in 1985; and (d) China sent its

first official delegation to the 1986 TESOL conference held in Anaheim, California

(Lam & Chow, 2004).

A series of educational reforms and revisions of the English curriculum

continued to progress in the 1990s. In 1993 the most sophisticated curriculum to date,

opening a new era in English language curriculum development in China

(Adamson, 2004, p. 192), was promulgated. Despite some inherited traditional

features such as quantification of what has to be learned (e.g., vocabulary, grammar,

listening skill, etc.), the 1993 curriculum progressively embraced innovative aspects

such as fostering communicative competence, developing students thinking ability,

promoting understanding and knowledge of foreign culture, and conducting research

on language teaching (Adamson, 2005; Adamson & Morris, 1997). In addition, the

curriculum stressed the role of English in economic modernization:

46
 A foreign language is an important tool for interacting with other countries
and plays an important role in promoting the development of the national
and world economy, science, and culture. (Adamson, 2002, p. 240)

Specifically, economic goals, in turn, allowed English language teaching to

shift gears toward more holistic and communication-oriented (Adamson & Morris,

1997, p. 23) approaches, focusing on integrated language skills, authentic tasks based

on students needs and ability, and contextualized language use. In short, the 1993

curriculum created new momentum for change and continuity (Adamson, 2004, p.

192) in English curriculum development in China, and fueled the notion that students

should learn how to use the language, rather than learn about the language itself

(Adamson, 2005).

As Adamson (2004) claimed, tensions between sociopolitical and pedagogical

issues have existed on the English curriculum since 1949, which generated the

oxymoronic status (Adamson & Morris, 1997, p. 24) of the English language in

China. Therefore, there is no doubt that Chinese learners of English and their learning

experiences have been greatly affected by the contexts in which they find themselves.

With regards to foreign language learning experience, Lam and Chow (2004)

conducted a survey study of 222 learners in China, aiming to identify their first

foreign language, the age they had started foreign language learning, and a variety of

activities they did outside the classroom. The participants were classified into five age

groups: (a) those aged 46-50, who had entered primary school from 1956 to 1960, (b)

those aged 41-45, had entered primary school from 1961 to 1965, (c) those aged 36-

40, who had entered primary school from 1966 to 1970, (d) those aged 29-35, who

had entered primary school from 1971 to 1977, and (e) those aged 24-28, who had

47
entered primary school from 1978 to 1982. All of them were university graduates,

non-foreign language majors and Han Chinese in terms of ethnicity. The time they

had started learning a foreign language differed in terms of age. Compared with the

other three groups, the two youngest groups, who entered secondary school in 1977

or afterwards, had started their foreign language learning earlier, i.e., from primary or

secondary school. The results indicate that the age of starting to learn a foreign

language became lower. For instance, while none of the youngest group said that they

had started learning a foreign language at university or at work, 54.5% of the oldest

group had started learning a foreign language after entering university.

The activities they did outside the classroom to increase their proficiency

appeared to be influenced by age, as well. For example, it was reported that the

younger the participants were, the more they seemed actively engaged in having

conversations with classmates outside the classroom in secondary school, using tapes

and materials, watching TV, seeing movies or watching video tapes, listening to or

singing songs, reading newspapers or magazines, and reading books. However, no or

little age differences were found in the activities such as having conversations with

classmates outside when in university, speaking in the foreign language with another

family member or others, listening to the radio, checking the dictionary, and writing

letters. In addition, all the age groups were rarely engaged in the activities such as

conversing with others and writing letters using the foreign language, while the

majority of them reported they used the dictionary, materials and books when

learning on their own.

Lams (2002) case studies with four Han Chinese learners of English also

48
suggest that foreign language learners and their learning experience are inseparable

from historical, cultural, sociopolitical, and economic climates of the time when

language learning takes place. Deng, a 45 year-old male learner who had experienced

the Cultural Revolution and interrupted schooling when in secondary school, felt

ashamed of his poor ability in English after studying it by himself for almost 30 years.

He pointed out that unsystematic instruction, lack of learning materials, and the

Grammar-Translation Method hindered him from acquiring authentic, everyday

English. Xue, a woman born in 1956 in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region,

shared a similar experience in learning English through memorization and focusing

on grammar. As an English teacher, however, she was able to have opportunities for

professional development, such as teacher training programs, and the Sino-British

teacher exchange program, which made her English improve faster than before.

Similarly, another female English teacher, Ling, born in 1963, actively sought

opportunities for exposure to English, and was successful in gaining access to higher

education. She recalled that her extroverted personality was an advantage that

enhanced her ability in oral English. Although she was seemingly confident in her

proficiency, she still felt that she had a problem in teaching English, which was

talking like a book (p. 254). Hua, 25-year-old female learner, had more favorable

learning circumstances (p. 255) than the other three learners, especially Deng and

Xue, who rarely had the luxury of being able to use foreign language learning

resources such as movies, books, and cassette tapes. In addition, stimulated by high

English fluency that her friends had achieved, she kept challenging herself to improve

in English. These stories provide a glimpse of substantial barriers and motivation that

49
the four Chinese learners of English from different times experienced. One thing all

of them obviously had in common is the growing awareness of the importance of

English.

English Teaching in China in the Age of Globalization

Two historic events occurred in 2001, Beijings winning of the 2008

Olympic bid and Chinas entry into the World Trade Organization. These marked a

momentous turn in English language education in the Peoples Republic of China

(Adamson, 2002, 2004; Bolton & Tong, 2002; Fang & Warschauer, 2004; Jin &

Cortazzi, 2004; Lam, 2002; Nunan, 2003; Pang, Zhou, & Fu, 2002). In fact, the

events represent an important milestone in this battered society's re-emergence from

decades of international isolation, economic privation and political upheaval (Smith,

section A3, p. 1). They signaled Chinas active involvement in the process of

economic globalization and international cooperation (Pang, Zhou, & Fu, 2002, p.

202), and were indicators of the countrys economical aspirations and political

ambitions (Jin & Cortazzi, 2004; Shenkar, 2005). The announcement by the former

President Jiang Zemin in celebration of winning the Olympic bid, All the people of

the whole country and of the capital must rouse their efforts and get down to serious

work to make sure that the 2008 Olympics are a success!, shows the countrys

eagerness to secure a place on the world stage as a rising global and economic power

(Smith, 2001; What the Games will do, 2001, p. 60). In reality, as part of the effort

to improve local residents English proficiency and Beijings image as an

international city for the 2008 Olympics Games, the city of Beijing introduced the

Beijing English Testing System (BETS) designed to test candidates listening,

50
speaking, reading and writing skills (Beijing launches BETS exams, 2006).

The events clearly have played a role of immediate impetuses (Lam &

Chow, 2004, p. 251) in encouraging the whole nation to learn English. The status of

English in China is now climactic, perceived as the bridge to the future (Jin &

Cortazzi, 2004, p. 120) and a must for all (Wang, 2004, p. 149). At the national

level, promoting English is seen as essential to enhance international communication,

economic reform and modernization, which will supposedly bring technological,

social and financial benefits to the country (Lam, 2002). At the individual level,

English is considered as a gate-keeper for academic, professional, and business

success for many young Chinese planning to enter a senior high school, looking for

access to higher education, applying for a job, and seeking promotion in workplace

(Adamson, 2004; Jin & Cortazzi, 2004; Qixin, 2001). The introduction of English as

a compulsory subject has been lowered to grade three from grade five; some

universities have started using English as medium to teach science, technology, trade,

finance, economics and law; and the English language plays a paramount role in

university entry, graduation, recruitment and promotion in workplaces (Nunan, 2003).

Moreover, in 2000, the Ministry of Education stipulated that all university students

must pass at least the College English Band Four examination there are six levels,

or bands in College English for graduation. Since then, some highly competitive

universities have forced their students to move far beyond the Band Four level,

requiring them to pass the College English Band Six, and to study Subject-Based

English and Advanced English (Zhaoxiang, 2002). In short, as Wang (2004)

mentioned, English has become a national yardstick for measuring the quality of

51
individual talents and a threshold for determining who was able to get what other

could not (p. 154) in contemporary China.

The circumstances described above suggest that Chinas motivation for

learning English is rather pragmatic (Boyle, 2000). Thus, by and large, there is some

reason in what Pang, Zhou and Fu (2002) claimed:

[In China], English is now learnt not for the prestige of knowing a foreign
language or appreciating the cultural heritage of Anglo-American societies,
but for patriotic and utilitarian reasons, and for national modernization as
well as personal advancement and material gain. (Pang, Zhou, & Fu, 2002, p.
203)

Technology-Enhanced English Language Learning and Teaching

Undoubtedly, China is one of the countries boasting the fastest diffusion of

ICT products and technological innovation, supported by rapid economic growth. The

country has strategically promoted the ICT sector (e.g., the semiconductor industry,

the electronic industry, and telecommunications), anticipating that it will accelerate

the modernization process and will project an image of a country that is developing

fast, liberating its economy and therefore a good place to invest (Katsuno, 2005, p.

8). According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD) report on Status and Overview of Official ICT Indicators for China (Katsuno,

2005), the production of personal computers in China exceeds production levels in

many OECD countries, and the penetration of mobile phones is doubling every year,

especially in urban areas. Moreover, there is a steady increase in the number of

persons employed in the ICT services sector where wages are about three times

52
higher than the national average. The number of Internet users also continues to climb

rapidly although the overall penetration rate of the Internet is still low. The 17th

statistical survey report on Internet Development in China (China Internet Network

Information Center, 2006) indicates that, as of December, 2005, China has

approximately 111 million Internet users, which is 179 times larger than in 1997.

While the number of people using dial-up has decreased from 59 million to 51 million

compared the same period of 2004, the number of broadband users has gone up to

64.3 million, increased by 50.2%.

With the national development of the ICT industry and the realization of the

significance of information literacy in the 21st century, the Chinese government and

the Ministry of Education have taken a strong role in integrating ICT into the

education system, based on the notion that technology is an essential tool to enhance

the quality of education and research in the information age (Li, 2003). To increase

the use of emerging technologies in teaching all subjects, long-term goals planned to

be achieved by 2010 were set up by the government (Li, 2003):

z Constructing ICT-based infrastructure,

z Promoting ICT education, distance education, and lifelong education,

z Improving the competence of ICT for all,

z Training ICT specialists,

z Operating software-producing centers and ICT corporations, and

z Increasing the general level of infrastructure development and ICT applicatio

n in education.

53
 Of a vast array of steppingstones initiated by the government to meet the long

term goals, the establishment of the China Education and Research Network

(CERNET) in 1994 is regarded as the most phenomenal achievement. Launched with

an aim to extend network coverage to the whole country, the CERNET, as the second

largest network in mainland China, provides information transmission services for

about 20 million users in about 1,500 universities and institutions (China Education

and Research Network, 2006; Li, 2003). Moreover, the CERNET plays a crucial role

in operating major national learning initiatives (e.g., Modern Distance Education

Project, School Connection Project, and Computer Network Construction Project for

the Western University Campus), connecting most universities in China to the

educational network, and supplying learning resources to rural areas (Fang &

Warschauer, 2004; Li, 2003). The Chinese government is also keen on training ICT

specialists and teachers (Zhang, Dong, & Chen, 2005; Li, 2003). For example, the

national steering committee on higher education educational technology, assigned by

the Ministry of Education, has established training centers at 127 higher education

institutions, developed rules, regulations, courses, and materials for higher education

teacher trainings, and delivered certificate-issued training programs (Zhang, Dong, &

Chen, 2005). Furthermore, Training Guidance for Teacher Training about

Information School was published in 2000 by the Teacher Education Department of

the Ministry of Education in order to encourage all primary and secondary teachers to

participate in the process of educational informationization (Li, 2003).

The field of English language education is also keeping pace with the progress

of educational informationization, sparked by a growing awareness that English and

54
information literacy skills would maximize the opportunity to interact with the

outside world and eventually bring about the countrys economic wealth and geo-

political leadership (Fang & Warschauer, 2004; Ma & Hu, 2002). Moreover, in the

belief that a good command of the English language is of vital importance in reaping

the benefits of new technologies, and vice versa, the Chinese government strenuously

stresses the significance of multiple levels of literacy in the 21st century (e.g., basic

literacy in Chinese and in English, computer literacy, and information literacy), and

actively undertakes technology-enhanced curriculum reform in English language

education (Adamson, 2005; Jin & Cortazzi, 2004; Ma & Hu, 2002). As a result, the

official syllabus and the College English Curriculum Requirement drafted in 2001

and 2003, respectively, highlighted the use of ICT for learning and teaching English

to foster communication skills, formative evaluation and student-centered learning

(Jin & Cortazzi, 2004). According to Peoples Daily Online (2006), the Ministry of

Education, with much regret for Chinese university students lack of oral proficiency

even after spending more than 3000 hours on learning English, called for integrating

computer-based teaching materials and software into English teaching and learning in

universities. Toward this end, a sum of 3.6 million dollar was invested for the pilot

use of English learning software among 200,000 students in 180 universities. The

Chinese Ministry of Education also supports distance education and on-line English

teaching programs, alongside formal English language teaching within the education

system in an effort to expand the population of English language users and increase

their English proficiency (Jin & Cortazzi, 2004; Wu, 2001). Furthermore, as

collaboration with foreign publishers and foreign English language teaching

55
professionals in the textbook publication became operative, incorporation of ICT into

textbook supplements aimed at facilitating technology-enhanced English lessons has

been promoted. The collaboration among the Ministry of Education, Peoples

Education Press (PEP) and the Ohana Foundation, a Hawaii-based educational

software company, to create the interactive DVD-based multimedia software package

in Junior English for China series, is an example (Adamson, 2005).

In this regard, it seems reasonable to say that English language teaching in

China is undergoing a sea change, accompanied with changes in national policy,

international relationships, and new technology. However, as Fang and Warschauer

(2004) mentioned, the processes and outcomes of technology-enhanced ELT

curricular and pedagogical reform undertaken in China have rarely been reported to

the outside. Likewise, pointing to the dearth of systematic research, Wu (2001) called

for organizing nationwide Chinese research teams that would effectively inform

TESOL professionals about the effects of English curriculum reform on learning

environment, pedagogical approaches, and teaching methodology and technique.

Challenges in English Language Teaching and ICT application

In the midst of unprecedented demand and national-level enthusiasm

regarding English education in general and technology-enhanced language learning in

particular, new challenges and problems have also emerged in English language

education in China (Adamson, 2005; Hu, 2003, 2005; Nunan, 2003; Wu, 2001).

There are huge differences in terms of access to technology and English

language education and the distribution of information infrastructure and resources

56
among three regions, Coastal, Central, and Western, which are classified according to

geographical locations and administrative divisions (Wang, 2002). The Coastal region,

in which major cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou are located, is the

most developed economically, holding 60% of the countrys GDP (China Internet

Network Information Center, 2006), whereas the Western region is seen as the

poorest region.

According to Harrington (2001), almost 50% of Internet users live in the well-

developed Coastal region and the percentage gradually moves westward. Similar

results appeared in Guo and Wangs (2004) study on Internet adoption in Chinas

small cities. They used questionnaires; archives; documents; interviews with local

government officials, local IT companies and Internet caf owners; and focus group

discussions with Internet users. Results showed that although there was a high

demand for Internet access, the overall percentage of Internet use in small cities is

lower than in major cities in the Coastal region. Although isolated from the big cities

geographically and culturally, people living in small cities wanted to be connected

with the outside via Internet as much as those who in the Coastal region for the same

reasons: information, entertainment, and future careers.

The 17th Statistical Survey Report on the Internet Development in China

published by China Internet Network Information Center (2006) also revealed a huge

regional gap in Internet development in China. According to this national-level

survey, as of December 31, 2005, the number of Internet users and computer hosts

were about 111 million and 49.5 million, respectively. Of the Internet users, more

than 91 millions live in cities. The Internet penetration rate in urban areas was 16.9%

57
while the rate in rural areas was 2.6%. Considering that Internet usage was related to

users monthly income, it was evident that the existing socioeconomic inequalities

have resulted in regional discrepancies of Internet usage and development.

Regional differences have also been observed in access to effective English

language instruction (Nunan, 2003), which indicates the close relationship between

English language education and the socioeconomic situation (Hu, 2003, 2005; Lam,

2002). According to Hu (2003, 2005), there is a noticeable regional gap in the

educational infrastructure (e.g., teaching facilities and instructional equipment),

which, in turn, further worsens the existing differences in relation to curricular and

pedagogical practices such as curricula, textbooks, teaching approaches and

methodologies and syllabi. In Hus survey of 252 secondary school graduates from

various parts of the country, teaching methodologies varied according to the regions

the participants came from, and those methodologies were affected by resources

factors and sociocultural influences. Participants from the economically well-

developed Coastal provinces encountered richer curricular resources, more

communicative approaches, more technology facilities, and more authentic materials

than their counterparts from the inland provinces.

There is also lack of professional development opportunities for English

teachers. The fact that in the world China has the greatest number of English

language learners, roughly estimated over 200 million, coupled with lowering the

introduction of compulsory English instruction to age 9 (grade 3) since 2001, has

caused a great shortage in qualified English teachers (Hu, 2002; Nunan, 2003).

Moreover, many pre-service and in-service teachers need adequate training to help

58
them gain a strong pedagogical knowledge base and catch up with new English

teaching methodologies that reflect social and economic changes in the 21st century.

In reality, however, the undergraduate teacher education programs are, by and large,

geared toward enhancing their language skills, instead of promoting their

instructional knowledge and pedagogical experiences. In-service teachers also suffer

from lack of opportunities to update their teaching methodologies and approaches

(Cheng & Ren, 2002).

Such a situation makes it more difficult for English language teachers to

implement technology-enhanced language teaching, despite the key role that

technology takes in the top-down government-initiated educational reform. In a

survey study of 527 higher education teachers, technical personnel, and

administrative staff, Zhang, Dong and Chen (2005) found that inadequate theoretical

knowledge and skills in educational technology and insufficient ideas were

considered the greatest difficulties in applying educational technology. These

difficulties were caused by lack of binding policies and problems with training and

funding. Self-assessed knowledge of educational technology also revealed the

participants lack of confidence in their ability to use information technology

procedures for instructional assessment and for educational and administration. It is

worth noting that they felt rather confident in their basic knowledge of and ability to

use computers, which provides the significant implication that teachers should be

offered ongoing pedagogy-oriented training rather than short-term, skill-based

training.

In summary, aspirations and challenges associated English language education

59
in China are very much similar to Warschauers (2003) comments on the Egyptian

case.

Problems identified include large class size; poorly trained teachers with low
wagesand a centralized, test-driven curriculum focusing on rote
memorization of unimportant materials (p.299).

Thus, as in many developing countries, in China, integrating technology into teaching

English is seen as a solution to tide over the difficult situation based on the belief that

it would lead the country to keep pace with the world and narrow the gap between the

countrys elite and its poor at the domestic level (Wang, 2002). However, there are a

vast array of challenges that hinders adopting technology in English language

education: These include unequal diffusion of ICT and the educational infrastructure,

high cost of Internet access, lack of qualified staff, inadequate policy, and lack of

resources (Wang, 2002).

Summary of Chapter 2

This chapter provided an extensive review of both theoretical literature and

empirical research. The review of the latest, most crucial literature generated four major

themes of the study: (a) globalization, technological revolution and English as an

international language; (b) expanded concepts of literacy and language in the age of

information; (c) the use of ICT in education and in language learning and teaching, and

(d) history of English language education in China and emerging challenges. The

review serves as a basis for the current study.

60
 Chapter 3
Research Methodology

This chapter details the research methodology employed in this study. After

listing eight research questions, I discuss the rationale for the research design, and

then provide information about setting, participants, and instrumentation. Data

collection procedures and detailed description of analysis procedures are also

provided.

Research Questions

The current study attempted to answer eight major questions:

Question 1: What kinds of information and communication technologies (ICT) do

the participants in this study own and have access to?

Question 2: How do they use information technologies for general purposes and for

language learning?

Question 3: How skilled are the students in using ICT?

Question 4: How do learner variables (e.g., gender, class and major) relate to their

information technology use and skills?

Question 5: What are their reason(s) to learn English?

Question 6: How do they perceive English, computers, the Internet, and learning

English?

Question 7: What are their perceived benefits of using ICT in learning English?

Question 8: What are their perceived barriers to using ICT in learning English?

61
 Research Design

Rationale for the Research Design

This study employed a within-stage mixed model research design integrating

quantitative and qualitative approaches by using a questionnaire that included both

open-ended and closed-ended questions. In other words, the quantitative and qualitative

data were collected concurrently in one phase of the research study (Cresswell, 2003).

The research design was chosen to best accommodate the research questions addressed

in the current study in a holistic view.

Quantitative and qualitative purists have confronted each other for more than a

century, advocating their contrasting paradigms of research (e.g., beliefs, values, and

assumptions) (Cresswell, 2003; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). While quantitative

researchers argue for time- and context-free generalizations, theory/hypothesis-testing,

explanation, and prediction, qualitative researchers favor value-bound, multiple-

constructed realities, discovery, exploration, and theory/hypothesis-generation (Johnson

& Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

However, numerous educational researchers have tried to stop the research

paradigm war by basing their knowledge claims on pragmatism (Creswell, 2003;

Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, 2003). They view the

differences between the two dominant paradigms as important and state that these

differences should not be ignored (Maxwell & Loomis, 2003). Instead, in an effort to

make sense of interdisciplinary, complex social phenomena in the postmodern era, they

choose more than one method within a single study (Cresswell, Clark, Gutmann, &

Hanson, 2003; Greene & Caracelli, 1997; Morse, 2003; Newman, Ridenour, Newman,

& Demarco, 2003).

62
 The current study collected both quantitative and qualitative data

simultaneously by using the questionnaire to explore the use of ICT among Chinese

university students learning EIL. It was especially hoped that the analysis of qualitative

data from a series of open-ended questions would further elaborate the findings from

quantitative data.

This study was intended to benefit from all that questionnaires can ever measure

through factual questions, behavioral questions, and attitudinal questions. Factual

questions are used to identify demographic characteristics such as gender, major and

class. Behavioral questions are employed to uncover the participants use of and skills

in ICT. Attitudinal questions are also used to elicit their perceived benefits of and

barriers to integrating ICT into learning English (Drnyei, 2003; Johnson & Turner,

2003).

Settings

The study was conducted in one of the leading universities, which is located

in a capital city of a northwest province in mainland China (see Appendix B).

Directly administered by the Ministry of Education, the university has about 32,000

students offering 67 undergraduate programs. As a part of the national reform project,

the university has actively participated in international academic cooperation and

exchanges and has carried out remarkable scientific research and application of

technologies.

The university is located in the largest city in northwestern China, with a

population of more than six million. As of 2003, the citys GDP per capita was

63
US$3,397, ranked 39th among 659 Chinese cities (Bureau of Commerce of Municipal

Government, 2006). Although the city is one of the most industrialized and developed

cities in the northwest, compared to major coastal cities such as Shanghai and

Guangzhou, it is economically far less developed.

In this university, undergraduate students are required to complete 16 credit

hours (8+4+4) of College English. According to the curriculum reform being

undertaken, they are supposed to take eight credit hour of basic skill class in the first

academic year. The four in the middle refers to four credit hours that they have to

take during the first semester of the second academic year when instructional focus

moves to intermediate or upper intermediate level communication skills. Different

course books and materials are used to meet the needs of students at different levels.

The four in the last position indicates that students can select four credit hours of any

practical English courses offered by the university (13 selective courses are currently

offered, such as Western Culture, Business English, Movies, and Idioms and

Expressions in Greek Myths and the Bible). More than 85% of the English courses

are held in a language lab equipped with multimedia facilities. The students have to

pass the National College English Test CET Band 4 for graduation. They are also

encouraged to pass the National College English Test CET Band 6, which is desired

but not compulsory (Meng, personal communication, June 20, 2006).

Participants

64
 Undergraduate students enrolled in College English courses at the university

described above. A total of 591 students (464 male students and 127 female students)

from 21 different majors participated in this study. The participants consisted of 452

freshmen, 30 sophomores, 90 juniors, and 19 seniors, taking required English courses

in the spring, 2006. The mean age was 19.66.

Instrument

The questionnaire below used for the current study was Information and

Communication Technology Use and Skills (ICTUS) for Learning English (Jung,

2006, see Appendix A), the modified version of the Student Information Technology

Use and Skills in Higher Education: 2005 Survey Questionnaire (EDUCAUSE

Center for Applied Research, 2005).

The questionnaire was originally developed in 2004, by the EDUCAUSE

Center for Applied Research (ECAR) team, and updated in 2005 based upon the

results of a study with the research team presented in 2004 (see Chapter 2 for the

results of this study). Since the focus of the current study is on the use of ICT in

learning English as a foreign language, I modified the original questionnaire to make

it more relevant to the language learning experience of higher education students in

Asian contexts.

I contacted the core researchers of the ECAR study team, Dr. Robert B.

Kvavik and Dr. Judith B. Caruso, at first to obtain permission to use the 2005 Student

Information Technology Use and Skills in Higher Education questionnaire. Then, Dr.

Kvavik directed me to EDUCAUSE Vice President, Richard N. Katz, who authorized

me to adapt and use the questionnaire.

65
 The resulting questionnaire consists of three sections: (a) background

information, (b) your use of ICT for general purposes, and (c) your use of ICT for

learning English. Questions concerning demographic variables (e.g., gender, major,

class, and perceived proficiency levels in reading, writing, speaking, listening,

grammar, and vocabulary) were incorporated into the first section. Open-ended

questions asked respondents to report (a) reason(s) to study English and (b)

metaphors for English, computers, the Internet, and learning English. The second

section, the general use of technology, has questions concerning ownership of

electronic devices (e.g., computer, PDA, cell phone, smart phone, electronic music

devices, wireless adapter, etc), hours of use of the electronic devices, ICT usage

patterns, and the students perceived ICT skills. The third section has questions

related to the use of ICT in learning English, such as hours spent on using ICT for

learning English. Open-ended questions regarding perceived benefits of and barriers

to using ICT in learning English were also added in this section. It was estimated to

take the participants approximately 15-20 minutes to complete the 95-item

questionnaire.

The Cronbach Coefficient Alpha test was used to find internal consistency for

the quantitative part in the Information and Communication Technology Use and

Skills (ICTUS) for Learning English. The Cronbach alpha was .860. Although

retaining at least .70 or higher is accepted in most social science research, a cut-off

value of .80 or higher is widely considered evidence of good reliability (Becker,

2000; George & Mallery, 2003).

66
Data Collection Procedures

Data collection occurred during the spring semester, 2006. I contacted seven

instructors teaching College English courses through Ms. Meng, who was a visiting

scholar at the University of Maryland. I sent a letter via email to explain the purpose

of the research and ask for their consent. To ensure that data collection would be

conducted in an efficient way, avoiding disruptions to normal, daily classroom

sessions, I let them know that they could ask participants to complete the

questionnaire at home.

I obtained Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and shared it with the

teachers before conducting data collection. The participants were required to

complete and sign an informed consent form translated into their own language,

mandarin Chinese. The informed consent form specified that participation is strictly

voluntary, that participants have the right to withdraw at any time, and that they

would not be penalized or lose benefits due to the withdrawal. Moreover, in the

consent form, I clearly mentioned that I would protect their confidentiality by using a

code for identification instead of their name (see Appendix C).

In the beginning of the 2006 spring semester, 700 questionnaires were

administered to students taking required English language courses. The rationale for

using the pen-and-pencil version of the questionnaire, instead of using the online

version, was that surveys using an email or web response mode tend to have lower

response rates than those using a mail response or pen-pencil response mode (see

Schonlau, Fricker, & Elliott, 2002, for detailed information). In addition, it was hard

67
for me to find a web survey system supporting Oriental characters such as Chinese.

I was introduced to a graduate assistant by Ms. Meng. As soon as the teachers

agreed to assist in data collection, I contacted the graduate assistant to provide

detailed descriptions of all possible entailments of data collection procedure (e.g.,

how to administer the questionnaire). In early March, 2006, the graduate assistant

delivered the questionnaire and the IRB to the instructors so that they could distribute

the documents to the students attending their courses. The seven instructors asked

their students to take the questionnaire home and bring it back as soon as they

finished answering the questions. Over a span of two weeks, they reminded the

students several times to return the completed questionnaire several times. Of 700

questionnaires disseminated, 591 valid ones were returned. The response rate was

84.4%, which is a very high rate for an international study such as this. The

instructors handed over the returned questionnaires to the graduate student who

translated the answers for open-ended questions written in Chinese by the students

into English before sending them to me. She inputted the data to an electronic

template that I created using Microsoft Excel and sent them to me via email.

Throughout the study, she and I exchanged numerous emails to make sure the data

collection process was on the right track and clarify all the unexpected procedural

issues that arose during the procedure. As soon as I received the data, I entered all the

quantitative data into a database using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS)

12.0 software and the qualitative data into Microsoft Word documents.

Data Analysis Procedures

68
Quantitative data analysis from closed-ended questions

Quantitative data collected from the questionnaires were analyzed using the

SPSS in order to answer Research Question 1, 2, 3, and 4. Data analysis procedures

involved the following:

(1) Descriptive statistics (e.g., means and standard deviations) was used to

describe the basic features of the data (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 1998).

(2) A series of independent t-tests, chi-square analyses, and analysis of

variance (ANOVA) were computed to find out the relationship between

independent variables (e.g., gender, class, and major) and dependent

variables (e.g, hours spent using ICT, ICT activities engaged by students,

and perceived ICT skill levels).

(3) Multiple regression analysis was performed to test relationship between

each set of predictor variables (e.g., gender, class, major, and desktop

ownership) and outcomes variables (e.g., hours spent using ICT,

perceived ICT skill levels), and to find out the contribution of each

predictor in accounting for validity in the outcome variable (Ross &

Morrison, 2001).

Qualitative data analysis from open-ended questions

69
 I analyzed the qualitative data from open-ended questions by using a

grounded theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). I identified, named, categorized

themes and emerging patterns from the data while reading and re-reading the data

several times. Specifically, as I read through the data, I detected certain words and

phrases that repeatedly appeared and stood out and looked for regularities, patterns

and topics that emerged from the data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Cresswell, 1998).

Questions that O'Callaghan (1996) suggested were useful in searching through the

data:

z What is happening in this data?

z What is the basic socio-psychological problem?

z What accounts for it?

z What patterns are occurring here?

Then, I explored them in a holistic fashion to answer the research questions

addressed in the current study, grouped them into coherent, meaningful categories,

and constantly compared them to identify possible links (Goulding, 1999; Strauss &

Corbin, 1998).

Throughout the study, I consulted existing literature, colleagues currently

enrolled in the Second Language Education and Culture program at the University of

Maryland, and other cultural informants from China to elicit theoretical

interpretations from the data and make sure that my interpretation was appropriate.

70
Establishing Validity and Reliability of the Study

Several steps were taken to establish validity and reliability of the study.

These included:

(1) Back-translation technique: The questionnaire was translated into Mandarin

Chinese first. Then, the translated questionnaire was back translated into

English by a different person, who did not participate in the first translation

process. Working with the translators, I corrected errors and nuances and

revised the instrument.

(2) Interrogating interpretations: I coded the data thoroughly checking cultural

contexts, developing categories, and checking development of ideas. (Cresswell,

2003).

(3) Corroboration: Throughout the research, I frequently checked if data were

analyzed appropriately with native cultural informants from China. (Cresswell,

2003; Johnson & Christensen, 2004).

(4) Quantitative reliability: Reliability for the quantitative part was assessed by

using Cronbach alpha as noted earlier.

Summary of Chapter 3

This chapter presented research design within-stage mixed model research. I

outlined research questions that guided the current study first. Then I provided a

detailed description of participants, settings, and questionnaire used for this study. In

addition, Chapter 3 laid out data collection and analysis procedures in depth. The

71
ways of establishing validity and reliability were also discussed in this chapter. The

results of the quantitative analysis will be found in Chapter 4, followed by the results

of the qualitative analysis in Chapter 5.

72
 Chapter 4
Results of Quantitative Questions

In this chapter, quantitative results from close-ended questions are reported.

Several statistical analyses were employed to answer the Research Questions 1, 2, 3

and 4.

Question 1: What kinds of information and communication technologies (ICT) do the

participants own and have access to?

Question 2: How do they use information technologies for general purposes and for

language learning?

Question 3: How skilled are the students in using ICT?

Question 4: How do learner variables (e.g., gender, class and major) relate to their

information technology use and skills?

Background Information

Of 591 respondents, 78.5% were male students and 21.5% were female

students. This is a reflection of the gender ratio of the university. They were 452

freshmen (76.5%), 30 sophomores (5.1%), 90 juniors (15.2%), and 19 seniors (3.2%)

from 21 different majors. The 21 majors were classified into four major clusters for

convenience in data analysis: engineering, math and science, management, and arts

and humanities, (see Table 4.1).

Since the majority of the participants were freshmen, it was not surprising to

find that their self-reported levels of English skills were quite low. When asked to

73
choose their proficiency levels among basic, intermediate, and advanced in the areas

of listening, speaking, reading, writing, grammar, and vocabulary, approximately half

of the respondents said their level was basic in all areas but reading and grammar.

Even in the reading and grammar part, only small percentages (2.7% and 5.0%,

respectively) were reported as advanced. Among the skills, a large number of the

students rated themselves as basic in speaking (72.3%) and listening (53.7%),

indicating that they felt relatively incompetent in communicative skills. More

students rated themselves as intermediate in reading (66.2%) and grammar (56.9%)

compared to intermediate in listening (44.4%), speaking (26.5%), writing (49.4%)

and vocabulary (49.7%), as Table 4.2 indicates.

74
 Table 4.1
Majors

Group Major Participants

Group 1: Engineering Electronical Engineering and Automation 32
Electric Information and Engineering 19
Telecommunication 8
Engineering Mechanics 27
Energy and Power Engineering 46
Light Information Science and Technology 23
Information and Computing Science 48
Industrial Engineering 59
Information Engineering 23
Mechanical Engineering and Automation 28
Materials Physics 30
Energy Dynamics 9
Total 352 (60.2%)
Group 2: Math & Science Applied Mathematics 27
Applied Physics 51
Computational Mathematics 1
Applied Chemistry 31
Total 110 (18.8%)
Group 3: Management Management Science and Engineering 40
E-Commerce 28
Accounting 23
Total 91 (15.6%)
Group 4: Arts & Humanities Art Design 2
English 30
Total 32 (5.5%)
Missing=6 N= 585

Table 4.2
Self-rating of English Proficiency Levels
N Basic Intermediate Advanced
Listening 583 313 (53.7%) 259 (44.4%) 11 (1.9%)
Speaking 584 422 (72.3%) 155 (26.5%) 7 (1.2%)
Reading 583 181 (31.0%) 386 (66.2%) 16 (2.7%)
Writing 581 287 (49.4%) 287 (49.4%) 7 (1.2%)
Grammar 580 221 (38.1%) 330 (56.9%) 29 (5.0%)
Vocabulary 580 286 (49.3%) 288 (49.7%) 6 (1.0%)

75
 For the question about foreign language(s) other than English, 89 students

said that they had learned one or more foreign languages other than English but the

lengths of the studies were very short from one week to one year. In addition, of those

89 students, 23 were from English department. Foreign languages they reported were

Japanese (51), French (20), German (15), Korean (6), Russian (3), Cantonese (2),

Malayan (1), and Arabic (1).

General Use of ICT

ICT Ownership

With regard to ICT ownership, the results showed that most of the

respondents were generally not well-equipped with advanced technologies. It was

found that 100 students (16.9%) had none of the eight selected technologies.

Especially, only 31.5% of the students owned desktop computers and 9.6% of them

owned laptops, indicating that laptop computers have not yet penetrated the students

computing experience. Other new technologies such as PDAs, smart phones, digital

cameras, and camcorders have not been widely diffused either. Interestingly, however,

more than half of the students answered that they owned cell phones (55.6%) and

music devices (55.8%), as Table 4.3 shows. The relatively high possession of cell

phones, compared to computers, reflects the fact that China has become the largest

mobile phone market in the world, which surpassed the United States in 2001

(Harrington, 2001; Wensheng, 2002).

Table 4.3
Ownership of Selected Technologies

76
 Technologies Ownership
Desktop (n=591) 186 (31.5%)
Laptop (n=591) 57 (9.6%)
PDA (n=591) 30 (5.1%)
Smart Phone (n=591) 61 (10.3%)
Cell phone (n=590) 328 (55.6%)
Music Device (n=591) 330 (55.8%)
Digital Camera (n=591) 61 (10.3%)
Such Camcorder (n=591) 13 (2.2%) a low rate of

computer ownership might be the result of the university being located in a less

socioeconomically developed region, and of the fact that the majority of the

participants (76.5%) were freshmen who had just entered the university. In fact, more

seniors owned desktops (94.7%) than juniors (78.9%), sophomores (50.0%), and

freshmen (18.1%) did. As for ownership of other technologies, juniors had the highest

rates in laptops, smart phones and digital cameras while PDAs and cell phones were

mostly owned by sophomores (see Table 4.4).

Table 4.4
Technology Ownership by Class
Freshman (452) Sophomore (30) Junior (90) Senior (19)

Desktop 82 (18.1%) 15 (50.0%) 71 (78.9%) 18 (94.7%)

Laptop 40 (8.8%) 1 (3.3%) 15 (16.7%) 1 (5.3%)
PDA 16 (3.5%) 4 (13.3%) 10 (11.1%) 0 (0%)
Smart phone 41 (9.1%) 4 (13.3%) 15 (16.7%) 1 (5.3%)
Cell phone 244 (54.1%) 23 (76.7%) 49 (54.4%) 12 (63.2%)
Music device 241 (53.3%) 21 (70.0%) 54 (60.0%) 14 (73.7%)
Digital Camera 41 (9.1%) 3 (10.0%) 15 (16.7%) 2 (10.5%)
Camcorder 8 (1.8%) 0 (0%) 4 (4.4%) 1 (5.3%)
Note: (% within class)

Chi-Square analyses were used to see if there is a significant relationship between

class and ownership of the selected technologies. The results showed that desktop

77
ownership (2 = 171.102, df= 3, p = 0.000) and PDA ownership (2 = 14.278, df= 3, p

= 0.003) were significantly related to class, according to Table 4.5 and 4.6.

Table 4.5
Chi-Square for the Relationship between Class and Desktop Ownership
N Value df Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 591 171.102 3 .000

Table 4.6
Chi-Square for the Relationship between Class and PDA Ownership
N Value df Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 591 14.278 3 .003

As far as gender was concerned, surprisingly enough, more female students

owned all of the selected technologies than male students, except laptops (see Table

4.7). The interesting finding that females owned more technologies (e.g., desktops,

cell phones, and music devices) than males needs further attention and cautious

interpretations because other uninvestigated factors (e.g., socioeconomic background

of the participants) may have influenced their ownership of the selected technologies.

Table 4.7
Technology Ownership by Gender

78
 Male (464) Female (127)
Desktop 134 (28.9%) 52 (40.9%)
Laptop 45 (9.7%) 12 (9.4%)
PDA 21 (4.5%) 9 (7.1%)
Smart Phone 46 (9.9%) 15 (11.8%)
Cell phone 243 (52.4%) 85 (67.5%)
Music Device 244 (52.6%) 86 (67.7%)
Digital Camera 42 (9.1%) 19 (15.0%)
Camcorder 8 (1.7%) 5 (3.9%) Note: (%
within gender)

The follow-up chi-square analyses also revealed that there was a significant

gender difference in the ownership of desktops (2 = 6.730, df= 1, p =0.009), cell

phones (2 = 9.140, df= 1, p = 0.003), and music devices (2 = 9.257, df= 1, p = 0.002),

as Table 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 show.

Table 4.8
Chi-Square for the Relationship between Gender and Desktop Ownership
N Value df Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 591 6.730 1 .009

Table 4.9
Chi-Square for the Relationship between Gender and Cell Phone Ownership
N Value df Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 590 9.140 1 .003

Table 4.10
Chi-Square for the Relationship between Gender and Music Device Ownership
N Value df Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 591 9.257 1 .002

In relation to major, students from management and arts and humanities

were more likely to own technologies than engineering or math and science majors.

79
 Specifically, desktops, laptops, digital cameras, and camcorders were mostly owned

by management-related majors studying management science and engineering, e-

commerce, and accounting. Arts and humanities majors owned more smart phones,

cell phones, music devices than any other major groups. Math and science majors

showed the lowest rate of technology ownership among all major groups (see Table

4.11).

Table 4.11
Technology Ownership by Major
Engineering Math &Science Management Arts & Humanities
(N=352) (N=110) (N=91) (N=32)
Desktop 102 (29.0%) 17 (15.5%) 51 (56.0%) 15 (46.9%)
Laptop 30 (8.5%) 8 (7.3%) 18 (19.8%) 1 (3.1%)
PDA 16 (4.5%) 5 (4.5%) 5 (5.5%) 4 (12.5%)
Smart phone 34 (9.7%) 13 (11.8%) 10 (11.0%) 4 (12.5%)
Cell phone 184 (52.3%) 56 (51.4%) 61 (67.0%) 25 (78.1%)
Music device 191 (54.3%) 55 (50.0%) 60 (65.9%) 23 (71.9%)
Digital Camera 33 (9.4%) 8 (7.3%) 16 (17.6%) 4 (12.5%)
Camcorder 6 (1.7%) 3 (2.7%) 4 (4.4%) 0 (0%)
(% within major)

The Chi-Square results indicated that major had a significant relationship with

ownership of desktops (2 = 42.979, df= 3, p = 0.000), laptops (2 = 13.378, df= 3, p =

0.004), cell phones (2 = 13.764, df= 3, p = 0.003), and music devices (2 = 8.954, df=

3, p = 0.030), as shown in Table 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, and 4.15.

Table 4.12
Chi-Square for the Relationship between Major and Desktop Ownership
N Value df Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 585 42.979 3 .000

80
 Table 4.13
Chi-Square for the Relationship between Major and Laptop Ownership
N Value df Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 585 13.378 3 .004

Table 4.14
Chi-Square for the Relationship between Major and Cell Phone Ownership
N Value df Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 584 13.764 3 .003

Table 4.15
Chi-Square for the Relationship between Major and Music Device Ownership
N Value df Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 585 8.954 3 .030

Internet Access

A total of 691 responses were gathered for the question concerning the means

of access to the Internet, since multiple answers were accepted. According to Table

4.16, the majority of students (91.0%) used wired broadband access. Of those

broadband users, 27.8% reported having commercial broadband service, while 63.2%

used school-operated broadband, suggesting that a large number of students

connected on campus. The results also showed that 6.4% used dial-up service

(school-operated and commercial dial-up service), and 2.6% adopted commercial

wireless network.

Table 4.16
Internet Access
Response (N=691)
Commercial dial-up 15 (2.2%)
School-operated dial-up 29 (4.2%)
Commercial broadband 192 (27.8%)
School-operated broadband 437 (63.2%)
Commercial wireless network 18 (2.6%)

81
Weekly Hours Spent Using ICT

When asked about hours per week they spent using ICT for general purposes,

excluding their use of cell phones, almost one half of the participants (44.9%)

reported that they spent three to ten hours per week, as Table 4.17 and Figure 4.1

show. More specifically, 22.7 % of the respondents reported between three and five

hours per week, and 22.2% indicated between six and ten hours per week. It was

surprising to know, however, that 10.1% of them said that they did not use ICT at all.

Table 4.17
Weekly Hours Spent on General Use of ICT
N= 576
Do not use 58 (10.1%)
Less than an hour 38 (6.6%)
1-2 hours 79 (13.7%)
3-5 hours 131 (22.7%)
6-10 hours 128 (22.2%)
11-15 hours 59 (10.2%)
16-20 hours 33 (5.7%)
More than 20 hours 50 (8.7%)

Figure 4.1. Weekly Hours Spent on General Use of ICT

82
 25 22.74% 22.22%

20
13.72%
15
10.07% 10.24%
8.68%
10 6.6% 5.73%

0
do not Less 1-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 more
use than an hours hours hours hours hours than 20
hour hours

ICT Activities

According to Table 4.18, the most frequently engaged in activities were

surfing the Internet (95.0%) and downloading or listening to music or videos (93.3%).

The majority of the students used technology for communications such as emailing

(83.4%) and instant-messaging (74.8%). Playing computer games was one of the

activities in which many students were frequently engaged as well (60.1%). On the

contrary, the students did not seem to be engaged frequently in using specialized

applications such as creating spreadsheets (31.3%), presentation slides (31.7%),

graphics (25.5%), audio/video files (18.9%) and webpages (22.6%). Moreover, the

fewest students were engaged in online shopping (15.3%). Weekly hours the students

spent doing the selected activities suggested that they used technology for three main

purposes: (a) entertainment (e.g., downloading or listening to music or videos, surfing

the Internet for pleasure, and playing games), (b) study, and (c) communication (e.g.,

83
emailing and instant messaging). The results also showed that they were least

frequently engaged in blogging and online shopping.

Table 4.18
ICT Activities Engaged in by Students in the Descending Order

Engaged Mean of
Activity
Rate Hours (SD)
Surfing the Internet for pleasure (n=581) 95.0% 3.32 (1.320)
Downloading or listening to music or videos/DVDs (n=582) 93.3% 3.44 (1.354)
Creating, reading, sending e-mail (n=579) 83.4% 2.26 (.910)
Classroom activities and studying using an electronic device 82.1% 3.02 (1.511)
(n=577)
Surfing the Internet for information to support your coursework 76.5% 2.34 (1.138)
(n=582)
Creating, reading, sending instant messages (n=576) 74.8% 2.77 (1.553)
Using a library resource to complete a course assignment (n=581) 72.3% 2.31 (1.153)
Writing documents for your coursework (n=581) 69.4% 2.37 (1.241)
Completing a learning activity or accessing information for a 68.6% 2.24 (1.151)
course using course websites (n=579)
Playing computer games (n=579) 60.1% 2.65 (1.810)
Writing documents for pleasure (e.g., blogging) (n=577) 31.9% 1.50 (.909)
Creating presentations (n=580) 31.7% 1.47 (.819)
Creating spreadsheets or charts (n=581) 31.3% 1.40 (.701)
Creating graphics (n=580) 25.5% 1.34 (.680)
Creating Web pages (n=580) 22.6% 1.40 (.919)
Creating and editing video/audio (n=581) 18.9% 1.27 (.679)
Online shopping (n=576) 15.3% 1.26 (.720)

The mean scores of weekly hours spent on each activity engaged by gender

were compared using a series of independent t-tests. According to Table 4.19,

statistically significant differences were found between gender and the four activities:

(a) surfing the Internet for information (t (580) =3.423, p<.05), (b) writing documents

for coursework (t (579) =3.842, p<.05), (c) instant messaging (t (574) =4.317, p<.05),

and (d) playing computer games (t (577) =-6.664, p<.05). Female students spent more

84
 hours studying, surfing the Internet for information, writing documents for

coursework, and instant messaging. On the other hand, male students spent more

hours playing games than female students. The findings suggested interesting usage

patterns between male and female students. Male students appeared to use ICT more

for recreational purposes (e.g., playing games) while female students used ICT more

for educational purposes and communications (e.g., writing for coursework, instant

messaging).

Table 4. 19
Differences in Activities using ICT based on Gender

Male Female t df p Interpretation

Studying 2.95(1.481) 3.29 (1.597) 2.220 575 .027
Using library resources 2.30 (1.159) 2.33 (1.138) .296 579 .767
Surfing for information 2.25 (1.106) 2.64 (1.203) 3.423 580 .001* F>M
Writing for course work 2.26 (1.199) 2.74 (1.322) 3.842 579 .000* F>M
Email 2.24 (.909) 2.33 (.911) .974 577 .331
Instant messaging 2.62 (1.491) 3.29 (1.663) 4.317 574 .000* F>M
Writing for fun 1.49 (.915) 1.56 (.890) .850 575 .396
Playing games 2.91 (1.873) 1.74 (1.174) -6.664 577 .000* M>F
Music/videos 3.38 (1.357) 3.65 (1.329) 1.964 580 .050
Surfing for fun 3.33 (1.365) 3.29 (1.146) -.238 579 .812
Online shopping 1.23 (.685) 1.37 (.826) 1.912 574 .087
Spreadsheets 1.40 (.726) 1.37 (.601) -.557 579 .578
Presentation slides 1.42 (.804) 1.63 (.857) 2.524 578 .016
Graphics 1.33 (.694) 1.36 (.626) .391 578 .696
Video/Audio files 1.31 (.732) 1.14 (.414) -2.454 579 .001
Webpages 1.40 (.950) 1.38 (.799) -.239 578 .811
Course websites 2.18 (1.153) 2.47 (1.122) 2.485 581 .013
*p< .003 after Bonferroni correction based on p<.05

Weekly hours spent doing ICT-involved activities by major demonstrated

that management majors were most frequently engaged in the selected activities, as

shown in Table 4.20, followed by arts and humanities majors. Students from

engineering and math and science major groups spent less hours using ICT for

85
pleasure and specialized applications than management and arts and humanities

majors. In addition, engineering students did not frequently use ICT for

communications (e.g., sending email and instant messages), while math and science

students were not actively engaged in doing course-related activities (e.g., using

course websites, studying or doing class activities, and writing for course work) and

looking for information (e.g., using library resources and surfing the Internet for

information).

Table 4.20
Activities Engaged by Majors

Engineering Math & Science Management Arts & Humanities

Studying 3.03 (1.478) 2.55 (1.563) 3.34 (1.368) 3.81 (1.600)
Using library resources 2.33 (1.059) 2.05 (1.212) 2.49 (1.417) 2.47 (1.077)
Surfing for information 2.31 (1.075) 1.82 (1.012) 2.78 (1.315) 3.19 (.738)
Writing for course work 2.31 (1.210) 1.76 (1.070) 3.07 (1.200) 3.03 (.999)
Email 2.21 (.869) 2.22 (1.065) 2.36 (.863) 2.58 (.923)
Instant messaging 2.65 (1.510) 2.68 (1.590) 3.19 (1.598) 2.97 (1.643)
Writing for fun 1.50 (.899) 1.42 (.921) 1.60 (.930) 1.45 (.888)
Playing games 2.59 (1.791) 2.58 (1.733) 3.10 (1.978) 2.32 (1.661)
Music/Videos 3.25 (1.287) 3.41 (1.266) 3.97 (1.410) 4.13 (1.607)
Surfing for fun 3.21 (1.204) 3.10 (1.297) 3.84 (1.463) 3.77 (1.707)
Online shopping 1.19 (.608) 1.23 (.839) 1.49 (.861) 1.42 (.886)
Spreadsheets 1.36 (.635) 1.38 (.920) 1.49 (.689) 1.52 (.508)
Presentation slides 1.42 (.766) 1.37 (.898) 1.74 (.941) 1.61 (.615)
Graphics 1.29 (.577) 1.35 (.884) 1.47 (.750) 1.45 (.723)
Video/Audio files 1.23 (.582) 1.36 (.907) 1.27 (.668) 1.45 (.768)
Webpages 1.25 (.718) 1.41 (1.031) 1.96 (1.255) 1.35 (.798)
Course websites 2.21 (1.038) 1.74 (1.049) 2.98 (1.366) 2.28 (.991)

One-way ANOVA tests were used to determine if there is a significant

difference between major and weekly hours on eight technology activities. As Table

4.21 indicates, the results showed that major was significantly different in weekly

hours on (a) studying and doing class activities (F(3,568) = 7.782, p <.05), (b) surfing

86
the Internet for information (F = (3, 572) = 19.528, p<.05), (c) writing documents for

course work (F(3,571) = 23.753, p <.05), (d) downloading or listening to music or

videos (F(3,572) = 10.096, p <.05), (e) surfing the Internet for fun (F(3,571) = 8.005,

p <.05), (f) online shopping (F(3,566) = 4.963, p <.05), (g) creating webpages

(F(3,570) = 15.004, p <.05), and (h) using course websites (F(3,573) = 21.343, p

<.05).

Tukeys post-hoc test was used to determine which major groups significantly

differed in those technology-involved activities. Math and science majors spent

significantly less hours using technology for studying and/or doing class activities

than any other major groups. Surprisingly, it was also revealed that arts and

humanities students spent significantly more hours studying than engineering majors.

Similar patterns were found in hours spent surfing the Internet for information and

using technology in writing documents for courses. In other words, math and science

students spent least hours on the two activities among four different major groups,

which was statistically significant. Additionally, arts and humanities majors and

management majors spent significantly more hours surfing the Internet for

information and using technology in writing documents for courses than engineering

students. As for downloading or listening to music/video, management and art and

humanities students were significantly more engaged than engineering and math and

science majors. In relation to surfing the Internet for fun, management students also

spent significantly more hours than engineering and math and science students.

Management students also spent significantly more hours shopping online than

87
 engineering students. Again, management majors were significantly more engaged in

creating webpages and using course websites than any other major groups.

Table 4.21
Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Major on Activities
Activities SS df F Sig. Tukey
Studying Between Groups 51.419 3 7.782 .000* 1-2, 1-4, 2-3, 2-4
Within Groups 1250.950 568
Total 1302.369 571
Library resources Between Groups 11.218 3 2.818 .038
Within Groups 757.680 571
Total 768.897 574
Info Surfing Between Groups 69.612 3 19.528 .000* 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 3-2, 3-4
Within Groups 679.693 572
Total 749.306 575
Writing for class Between Groups 98.090 3 23.753 .000* 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 3-2, 3-4
Within Groups 786.007 571
Total 884.097 574
Email Between Groups 5.333 3 2.148 .093
Within Groups 470.974 569
Total 476.307 572
IM Between Groups 22.396 3 3.123 .026
Within Groups 1353.155 566
Total 1375.551 569
Writing for fun Between Groups 1.680 3 .680 .565
Within Groups 467.070 567
Total 468.750 570
Games Between Groups 23.296 3 2.383 .068
Within Groups 1853.975 569
Total 1877.271 572
Music/Video Between Groups 52.896 3 10.096 .000* 1-3, 1-4, 2-3, 2-4
Within Groups 998.977 572
Total 1051.873 575
Surfing for fun Between Groups 40.295 3 8.005 .000* 1-3, 2-3
Within Groups 958.098 571
Total 998.393 574
Online shopping Between Groups 7.614 3 4.963 .002* 1-3
Within Groups 289.475 566
Total 297.089 569
Spreadsheets Between Groups 1.873 3 1.277 .281
Within Groups 279.084 571
Total 280.957 574
PPT Between Groups 8.985 3 4.515 .004
Within Groups 378.069 570
Total 387.054 573
Graphics Between Groups 2.989 3 2.159 .092
Within Groups 263.117 570
Total 266.106 573
Video/Audio files Between Groups 2.475 3 1.804 .145

88
 Within Groups 261.201 571
Total 263.677 574
Webages Between Groups 35.543 3 15.004 .000* 1-3, 2-3 3-4,
Within Groups 450.096 570
Total 485.639 573
Course websites Between Groups 76.896 3 21.343 .000* 1-2, 1-3, 2-3, 3-4
Within Groups 688.158 573
Total 765.054 576
*p< .003 after Bonferroni correction based on p<.05

With regard to the relationship between weekly hours and class, freshmen

spent least hours on the selected activities, which is seemingly associated with their

low technology ownership rates. Juniors were most actively engaged in a variety of

activities using ICT: (a) using library resources, (b) writing documents for

coursework, (c) creating and editing audio/video files, (d) surfing the Internet for fun,

(e) downloading music or videos, (f) playing games (g) creating presentation slides,

(h) creating graphic images, and (i) using course websites. Seniors reported spending

a great deal of hours on (a) surfing the Internet for information, (b) emailing, (c)

writing for fun, (d) online shopping, (e) creating charts, and (f) creating audio/video

files. It seems that their usage patterns were more purposeful than other class cohorts.

Sophomores were more likely to use ICT in doing classroom activities and sending

instant messages than other class cohorts (see Table 4.22).

89
Table 4.22
Activities Engaged by Class
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
Studying 2.85 (1.438) 3.97 (1.523) 3.61 (1.572) 3.00 (1.764)
Using library resources 2.22 (1.082) 2.50 (1.106) 2.67 (1.398) 2.26 (1.284)
Surfing for information 2.02 (.962) 3.27 (.691) 3.39 (1.148) 3.42 (1.017)
Writing for course work 2.08 (1.166) 3.17 (.874) 3.30 (1.096) 3.26 (.933)
Email 2.17 (.904) 2.62 (.942) 2.47 (.851) 2.74 (.872)
Instant messaging 2.73 (1.603) 3.03 (1.679) 2.84 (1.323) 2.84 (1.323)
Writing for fun 1.43 (.857) 1.45 (.910) 1.77 (.960) 2.05 (1.393)
Playing games 2.57 (1.801) 2.34 (1.717) 3.26 (1.864) 2.16 (1.302)
Music/Videos 3.21 (1.263) 4.17 (1.649) 4.20 (1.342) 4.05 (1.177)
Surfing for fun 3.06 (1.175) 3.83 (1.754) 4.24 (1.360) 4.11 (1.150)
Online shopping 1.16 (.596) 1.45 (.910) 1.57 (.999) 1.68 (.885)
Spreadsheets 1.29 (.654) 1.52 (.509) 1.74 (.758) 2.05 (.848)
Presentation slides 1.22 (.614) 1.66 (.614) 2.44 (.888) 2.32 (.885)
Graphics 1.21 (.576) 1.48 (.738) 1.86 (.801) 1.68 (.885)
Video/Audio files 1.22 (.634) 1.48 (.785) 1.41 (.763) 1.58 (.902)
Webpages 1.24 (.777) 1.38 (.820) 2.18 (1.176) 1.42 (.902)
Course websites 2.01 (1.023) 2.30 (1.022) 3.21 (1.311) 2.95 (.621)

The results of the one-way ANOVA analysis showed that students class

status was significantly related to weekly hours they spent using ICT in almost all the

selected activities except using online library resources, instant messaging, playing

games, and creating video/audio files. As Table 4.23 shows, the post hoc analyses

using Tukey revealed that freshmen spent significantly less hours using technology

for the selected activities than students in upper level classes, especially juniors and

seniors. Additional findings included:

(1) Juniors were significantly more engaged in using graphics than sophomores,

creating webpages than sophomores and seniors, and using course websites

than sophomores.

(2) Seniors spent significantly more hours using spreadsheets and presentation

90
 software than sophomores.

Table 4.23
Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Class on Activities

Activities SS df F Sig. Tukey

Studying Between Groups 70.316 3 10.785 .000* 1-2, 1-3
Within Groups 1245.344 573
Total 1315.660 576
Using library resources Between Groups 16.011 3 4.076 .007
Within Groups 755.456 577
Total 771.466 580
Surfing for information Between Groups 193.541 3 66.733 .000* 1-2, 1-3, 1-4
Within Groups 558.777 578
Total 752.318 581
Writing for course work Between Groups 148.259 3 38.293 .000* 1-2, 1-3, 1-4
Within Groups 744.654 577
Total 892.912 580
Email Between Groups 15.675 3 6.496 .000* 1-2, 1-3, 1-4
Within Groups 462.495 575
Total 478.169 578
IM Between Groups 3.376 3 .465 .707
Within Groups 1383.983 572
Total 1387.359 575
Writing for fun Between Groups 14.537 3 6.013 .000* 1-3, 1-4
Within Groups 461.710 573
Total 476.246 576
Playing games Between Groups 42.860 3 4.440 .004
Within Groups 1850.055 575
Total 1892.915 578
Music/Video Between Groups 97.355 3 19.374 .000* 1-2, 1-3, 1-4
Within Groups 968.159 578
Total 1065.514 581
Surfing for fun Between Groups 125.313 3 27.241 .000* 1-2, 1-3, 1-4
Within Groups 884.780 577
Total 1010.093 580
Online shopping Between Groups 17.402 3 11.826 .000* 1-3, 1-4
Within Groups 280.570 572
Total 297.972 575
Spreadsheets Between Groups 24.623 3 18.192 .000* 1-3, 1-4, 2-4
Within Groups 260.327 577
Total 284.950 580
Presentation slides Between Groups 1-2, 1-3, 1-4,
127.291 3 93.585 .000*
2-4
Within Groups 261.151 576
Total 388.441 579
Graphics Between Groups 34.706 3 28.632 .000* 1-3, 1-4, 2-3
Within Groups 232.734 576
Total 267.440 579
Video/Audio Between Groups 6.065 3 4.462 .004

91
 Within Groups 261.423 577
Total 267.487 580
Web pages Between Groups 65.804 3 29.855 .000* 1-3, 2-3, 3-4
Within Groups 423.194 576
Total 488.998 579
Course websites Between Groups 117.258 3 34.596 .000* 1-3, 1-4, 2-3
Within Groups 654.155 579
Total 771.413 582
*p< .003 after Bonferroni correction based on p<.05

Self-Perceived Level of ICT Skills

When the students were asked to rate their technology skills compared to

other students skills on their campus, almost half of the students (48.1%) rated

themselves as having about the same skill level. Only 12% of them saw themselves as

more skilled or much more skilled than their peers while about 40% reported their

technology skills were lower or much lower compared to other students skills.

Overall, the students did not seem confident in their technology skills (see Table

4.24).

Table 4.24
Self-rating ICT Skill Levels

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Much less skilled 64 10.8 10.9 10.9
Less skilled 170 28.8 29.0 39.9
About the same skill level 282 47.7 48.1 88.1
More skilled 63 10.7 10.8 98.8
Much more skilled 7 1.2 1.2 100.0
Total 586 99.2 100.0
Missing 5 .8
Total 591 100.0

Students self-assessed technology skills had a statistically significant

relationship with gender (t (584) = -3.773, p<.05), major (F (3, 576) = 3.754, p<.05),

92
class (F (3, 582) = 9.625, p<.05) and desktop ownership (t (392. 879) = 11.686,

p<.05). Male students rated their skills significantly higher than female students (see

Table 4.25), and desktop owners rated their skills much higher than non-owners (see

Table 4.26). Moreover, the Tukey follow-up tests showed that management majors

self-rated their technology skills significantly higher than math and science majors

(see Table 4.27 and 4.28), and that juniors rated their skill levels significantly higher

than freshmen (see Table 4.29 and 4.30).

Table 4. 25
Differences in Self-rating ICT skills based on Gender
Male Female t df p
Self-rated ICT skills 2.69 (.860) 2.37 (.818) -3.773 584 .000

Table 4.26
Differences in Self-rating ICT skills based on Desktop Ownership
Yes (N=182) No (N=404) t df p
Self-rated ICT skills 3.16 (.714) 2.38 (.811) 11.686 392.879 .000

Table 4.27
Means and Standard Deviations for Major and Self-rating ICT Skill Levels
Engineering Math & Science Management Arts & Humanities
Self-rated ICT skills 2.66 (.840) 2.39 (.910) 2.76 (.835) 2.72 (.924)

Table 4.28
Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Major on Self-rating ICT skills
SS df F Sig. Tukey
Between Groups 8.281 3 3.754 .011 3-2
Within Groups 423.531 576
Total 431.812 579

93
Table 4.29
Means and Standard Deviations for Class and Self-rating ICT skill Levels
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
Self-rated ICT skills 2.53 (.879) 2.70 (.952) 3.02 (.639) 2.94 (.539)

Table 4.30
Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Class on Self-rating ICT skills
SS df F Sig. Tukey
Between Groups 20.499 3 9.625 .000 3-1
Within Groups 413.155 582
Total 433.654 585

A series of stepwise multiple regression analyses were performed to identify

which variable(s) discussed previously (e.g., gender, class, major and desktop

ownership) contributed most to students self-assessed technology skills. The

stepwise regression procedure is known as useful particularly in looking for the most

parsimonious set of independent variable(s) with the highest correlation to the

dependent and building a model equation with possible predictors (Pedhazur, 1997).

In stepwise regression, independent variables are entered based on their statistically

significant contribution to the explanation of the variance in the dependent variable.

Variables that do not make a significant contribution are eliminated from the final

equation.

The regression Table 4.31 shows that model 1 that included only desktop

ownership accounted for 17.4% of the variance (adjusted R2 = .173). The inclusion of

gender into model 2 added about 4% of the variance being explained (R2 change

=.039), and this model accounted for 21.3% of the variance (adjusted R2 =.210). In

addition, the stepwise regression indicated that class and major were not significant

predictors of students self-perceived technology skills.

94
 Table 4.31
Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regressions of Self-rating ICT skills on
Desktop Ownership, Gender, Class and Major
Std. Error Change Statistics
Adjusted of the R Square Sig.
Model R R Square R Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 F Change
1 .417(a) .174 .173 .786 .174 121.743 1 578 .000
2 .462(b) .213 .210 .767 .039 28.715 1 577 .000
a Predictors: (Constant), desktop
b Predictors: (Constant), desktop, gender

The students were also asked to evaluate their level of ICT skills in using 11

selected applications, as shown in Table 4.32. They were given five scales with

detailed explanations: (1) do not use, (2) very unskilled=have not used the software,

(3) unskilled=have used the software but not regularly, (4) skilled=full use of basic

features but not advanced features, and (5) very skilled=ability to use advanced

features, link the software with other software, troubleshoot problems, and

upgrade/patch the software. Surprisingly, they rated themselves as unskilled or very

unskilled in almost all activities except word processing (mean=3.66). The students

reported lower skill levels for computer maintenance (mean=1.88), creating and

maintaining blogs (mean=1.74), and creating and editing video/audio files

(mean=1.83). Nearly or more than half of them answered do not use for computer

maintenance (49.6%), creating and maintaining blogs (53.9%), and creating and

editing audio/video files (43.9%). The results suggested that the students skill levels

were not high enough especially for advanced applications (e.g., creating web pages

and hardware maintenance), and that the participants appeared well aware of this fact.

95
 Table 4.32
Means and Standard Deviations for Perceived ICT skills for Selected Applications

Activity Mean (SD)

Word processing (N=582) 3.66 (.827)
Computer operating systems (N=582) 3.26 (1.116)
Spreadsheets (N=582) 3.21 (.865)
Online library resources (N=581) 2.72 (1.100)
Presentation software (N=581) 2.70 (1.206)
Securing your electronic device (N=581) 2.58 (1.251)
Graphic software (N=581) 2.52 (.989)
Creating Web pages (N=581) 2.26 (1.073)
Computer maintenance (N=581) 1.88 (1.070)
Creating and editing video/audio (N=581) 1.83 (.897)
Creating and maintaining blogs (N=581) 1.74 (.991)
Scale: 1=do not use, 2=very unskilled, 3=unskilled, 4=skilled, 5=very skilled

No significant gender difference was found in self-rating skill levels (see

Table 4.33) for all selected applications.

Table 4.33
Differences in Perceived ICT Skills Based on Gender
Male Female t df p
Word 3.63 (.860) 3.81 (.680) 2.189 580 .029
Spreadsheets 3.21 (.889) 3.23 (.774) .301 580 .764
PPT 2.64 (1.216) 2.92 (1.147) 2.305 579 .022
Graphic software 2.52 (1.012) 2.54 (.903) .207 579 .836
Video/Audio files 1.86 (.935) 1.74 (.739) -1.253 579 .154
Webpages 2.21 (1.081) 2.44 (1.027) 2.125 579 .034
Blogs 1.73 (1.006) 1.79 (.936) .639 579 .523
Online library 2.70 (1.126) 2.78 (.999) .649 579 .517
OS 3.28 (1.135) 3.19 (1.045) -.762 580 .446
Maintenance 1.94 (1.113) 1.66 (.870) -2.533 579 .012
Security 2.60 (1.282) 2.54 (1.133) -.479 579 .632
*p< .005 after Bonferroni correction based on p<.05.

96
 Arts and humanities majors claimed to possess highest skill levels in the areas

of word processing, spreadsheets, presentation software and creating or editing

video/audio files while management majors reported to have highest skill levels in

dealing with graphics, web pages, blogs, online library resources, operating system,

computer maintenance and security. On the other hand, math and science majors

reported to have lowest skill levels in most areas, except four areas in which

engineering majors claimed to have lowest skill levels (e.g., creating graphics,

video/audio files, web pages and blogs) (see Table 4.34). According to one-way

ANOVA analyses, major was significantly related to students perceived skills in (a)

word processing (F(3,572) = 13.742, p <.05), (b) spreadsheets (F(3,572) = 5.625, p

<.05) , (c) presentation software (F(3,571) = 17.312, p <.05), (d) graphic software

(F(3,571) = 6.091, p <.05), (e) websites (F(3,571) = 14.159, p <.05), (f) operating

system (F(3,572) = 5.333, p <.05), and (g) computer security (F(3,571) = 8.032, p

<.05). The post hoc tests further indicated:

(1) Both management and arts and humanities majors perceived their skills in

using word processing significantly higher than engineering and math and

science majors.

(2) Arts and humanities majors rated themselves significantly higher in using

spreadsheets than engineering and math and science majors.

(3) Management and arts and humanities self-rated significantly higher in using

presentation software than engineering and math and science majors.

(4) Management students rated themselves in creating graphic images

significantly higher than engineering and math and science students.

97
 (5) Engineering students perceived their skills in creating websites significantly

lower than management and arts and humanities students.

(6) Math and science students rated their skills in dealing with operating system

significantly lower than management students.

(7) Management majors perceived themselves significantly higher than

engineering and math and science majors in terms of maintaining computer

security.

Table 4.34
Means and Standard Deviations for Major and Perceived ICT Skills for Selected
Applications
Engineering Math & Science Management Arts & Humanities
Word 3.63 (.823) 3.39 (.900) 3.98 (.519) 4.19 (.780)
Spreadsheets 3.19 (.842) 3.03 (.910) 3.33 (.764) 3.69 (.998)
PPT 2.57 (1.180) 2.37 (1.120) 3.23 (1.171) 3.63 (1.008)
Graphic software 2.42 (.971) 2.45 (1.000) 2.86 (1.001) 2.84 (.847)
Video/audio files 1.77 (.848) 1.88 (.948) 1.91 (.990) 2.16 (.954)
Webpages 2.11 (1.012) 2.15 (1.142) 2.86 (.978) 2.63 (1.100)
Blogs 1.66 (.937) 1.74 (.981) 2.07 (1.140) 1.75 (.984)
Online library 2.70 (1.089) 2.62 (1.147) 2.92 (1.052) 2.78 (1.157)
OS 3.28 (1.106) 2.99 (1.134) 3.60 (1.026) 3.06 (1.190)
Maintenance 1.84 (1.059) 1.76 (.986) 2.11 (1.136) 2.00 (1.191)
Security 2.53 (1.255) 2.25 (1.116) 3.07 (1.197) 2.88 (1.408)
( ): Standard Deviation

98
Table 4.35 Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Major on ICT Skills
SS df F Sig. Tukey
Word Between Groups 26.173 3 13.742 .000* 1-2, 1-3, 1-4
Within Groups 363.153 572 2-3, 2-4
Total 389.326 575
Spreadsheets Between Groups 12.269 3 5.625 .001* 1-4, 2-4
Within Groups 415.891 572
Total 428.160 575
PPT Between Groups 69.778 3 17.312 .000* 1-3, 1-4, 2-3
Within Groups 767.172 571 2-4
Total 836.950 574
Graphics Between Groups 17.350 3 6.091 .000* 1-3, 2-3
Within Groups 542.208 571
Total 559.558 574
Audio/Video files Between Groups 5.465 3 2.269 .080
Within Groups 458.507 571
Total 463.972 574
Websites Between Groups 45.619 3 14.159 .000* 1-3, 1-4, 2-3
Within Groups 613.250 571
Total 658.870 574
Blogs Between Groups 12.112 3 4.189 .006
Within Groups 550.278 571
Total 562.390 574
Online library Between Groups 5.028 3 1.391 .245
Within Groups 688.005 571
Total 693.033 574
OS Between Groups 19.492 3 5.333 .001* 2-3
Within Groups 696.868 572
Total 716.359 575
Maintenance Between Groups 7.308 3 2.143 .094
Within Groups 648.925 571
Total 656.233 574
Security Between Groups 36.512 3 8.031 .000* 1-3, 2-3
Within Groups 865.314 571
Total 901.826 574
*p< .005 after Bonferroni correction based on <.05.

The ANOVA results showed that class was significantly different in

perceived skills for all 11 applications and activities presented, as Table 4.37 shows.

In all cases, freshmen rated themselves as least skilled. While sophomores ranked

themselves higher than other class groups in using basic applications such as word

99
and spreadsheets, juniors and seniors rated themselves as more skilled than other

class groups in using advanced applications. The post hoc tests indicated:

(1) Freshmen assessed their skills significantly lower than sophomores for word

processing, using spreadsheets and graphic software, creating video/audio

files, developing webpages, and maintaining security.

(2) Freshmen rated themselves significantly lower than juniors in dealing with

word processing, spreadsheets, presentation and graphic software,

video/audio files, webpages, blogs, operating system, online library, computer

maintenance, and security.

(3) Freshman rated their skill significantly lower than seniors for presentation

software, blogs, computer maintenance and security.

(4) Juniors perceived their skills significantly higher than seniors for creating

webpages, and than sophomores for creating and editing blogs.

(5) Seniors rated themselves significantly higher than sophomores in creating and

editing blogs, and using operating system.

100
 Table 4.36
Means and Standard Deviations for Class and Perceived ICT Skills for Selected
Applications

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Word 3.51 (.843) 4.30 (.535) 4.18 (.441) 3.79 (.787)
Spreadsheets 3.12 (.859) 3.77 (.898) 3.44 (.797) 3.42 (.769)
PPT 2.34 (1.092) 3.77 (.858) 3.91 (.685) 3.84 (.602)
Graphic software 2.40 (.998) 2.93 (.785) 3.00 (.866) 2.42 (.769)
Video/audio files 1.75 (.845) 2.23 (.935) 2.04 (1.054) 2.21 (.855)
Webpages 2.02 (1.018) 2.73 (1.048) 3.26 (.666) 2.47 (.964)
Blogs 1.58 (.866) 1.80 (.997) 2.35 (1.253) 2.53 (.905)
Online library 2.60 (1.090) 2.90 (1.094) 3.20 (1.079) 3.05 (.705)
OS 3.15 (1.135) 3.20 (1.095) 3.71 (.944) 3.79 (.787)
Maintenance 1.69 (.960) 2.07 (1.202) 2.53 (1.159) 2.95 (1.079)
Security 2.33 (1.165) 3.00 (1.365) 3.51 (1.078) 3.58 (1.121)

101
Table 4.37
Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Class on Perceived ICT Skills for
Selected Applications
SS df F Sig. Tukey
Word Between Groups 46.165 3 25.304 .000* 1-2, 1-3
Within Groups 351.500 578
Total 397.665 581
Spreadsheets Between Groups 18.423 3 8.521 .000* 1-2, 1-3
Within Groups 416.582 578
Total 435.005 581
Presentations Between Groups 247.831 3 79.969 .000* 1-2, 1-3, 1-4
Within Groups 596.059 577
Total 843.890 580
Graphics Between Groups 32.244 3 11.597 .000* 1-2, 1-3
Within Groups 534.778 577
Total 567.022 580
Audio/Video files Between Groups 14.777 3 6.287 .000* 1-2, 1-3
Within Groups 452.029 577
Total 466.806 580
Websites Between Groups 122.240 3 43.099 .000* 1-2, 1-3, 3-4
Within Groups 545.515 577
Total 667.756 580
Blogs Between Groups 1-3, 1-4, 2-3,
55.792 3 20.898 .000*
2-4
Within Groups 513.482 577
Total 569.274 580
Online library Between Groups 30.591 3 8.773 .000* 1-3
Within Groups 670.680 577
Total 701.270 580
OS Between Groups 28.571 3 7.918 .000* 1-3
Within Groups 695.252 578
Total 723.823 581
Maintenance Between Groups 76.318 3 24.963 .000* 1-3, 1-4, 2-4
Within Groups 588.005 577
Total 664.324 580
Security Between Groups 128.783 3 31.820 .000* 1-2, 1-3, 1-4
Within Groups 778.418 577
Total 907.201 580
*p< .005 after Bonferroni correction based on p<.05

102
 According to Table 4.38, desktop ownership was significantly related to

students perceived ICT skills. For all applications, desktop owners self-assessed their

skill levels much higher than non-owners. The differences were particularly

noticeable in the areas of presentation software, computer maintenance and security.

Table 4.38
Differences in Perceived ICT Skills for Selected Applications by Desktop Ownership
Desktop Owner Desktop Non-Owner t df p
Word 3.96 (.706) 3.53 (.845) 5.908 580 .000*
Spreadsheets 3.41 (.768) 3.12 (.894) 3.734 580 .000*
PPT 3.50 (.939) 2.33 (1.136) 12.189 579 .000*
Graphic software 2.86 (.867) 2.36 (1.003) 5.818 579 .000*
Video/audio files 2.16 (1.001) 1.68 (.802) 6.129 579 .000*
Webpages 2.74 (1.067) 2.04 (1.001) 7.746 579 .000*
Blogs 2.10 (1.175) 1.58 (.843) 6.093 579 .000*
Online library 3.06 (1.038) 2.56 (1.093) 5.208 579 .000*
OS 3.74 (.937) 3.04 (1.123) 7.421 580 .000*
Maintenance 2.58 (1.186) 1.55 (.827) 12.168 579 .000*
Security 3.46 (1.037) 2.17 (1.126) 13.135 579 .000*
*p< .005 after Bonferroni correction based on p<.05.

Stepwise multiple regression analyses were used again to determine the best

set of potential predictor variables of students perceived skill levels for each

application, as Table 4.39 shows. The results indicated that:

(1) A model including class, major, and desktop accounted for 9.6%

(adjusted R2 = .096) of the variance in students perceived skills for word

processing (see Table 4. 40).

(2) Class was the single most significant predictor explaining students

perceived skill levels for using spreadsheets (adjusted R2 = .024) (see

103
 Table 4. 41).

(3) A model incorporating class, desktop and major explained 32% (adjusted

R2 = .319) of the variance in students perceived skills for using

presentation software (see Table 4.42).

(4) A model including desktop and major accounted for 6.6% (adjusted R2

= .066) of the variance in students perceived skills for using graphic

software (see Table 4.43).

(5) Desktop ownership was the strongest predictor variable in explaining

students perceived skill levels for creating and managing video/audio

files, accounting for 6% (adjusted R2 = .060) of the variance (see Table

4.44).

(6) A combination of class, major and desktop ownership accounted for

17.6% (adjusted R2 = .176) of the variance in the students perceived

skills for creating webpages (see Table 4.45).

(7) A combination of class and desktop made a significant contribution to

students perceived skills for managing blogs (adjusted R2 = .105) (see

Table 4.46).

(8) A model involving desktop ownership and class accounted for 5.2%

(adjusted R2 = .052) of the variation in students perceived skills for using

online library. (see Table 4.47).

(9) Desktop ownership was the only variable, which entered the predicting

model for students perceived skills for Operating System (OS) (adjusted

R2 = .087) (see Table 4.48).

104
 (10) A combination of desktop ownership, gender, and class explained 25%

(adjusted R2 = .250) of the variation in students perceived skills for

computer maintenance (see Table 4.49).

(11) A model including desktop, class, and gender explained 25.6%

(adjusted R2 = .256) of the variance in students perceived skills for

maintaining computer security (see Table 4.50).

In stepwise multiple regression analyses, desktop ownership and class were

always strong predictor variables. When considering the fact that class was

significantly related to desktop ownership (see Table 4.5), ownership of desktops

seems a powerful predictor that contributes most to students perceived skill levels for

the selected applications and activities.

Table 4.39
Factors Explaining Perceived ICT Skills for Selected Applications
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Word Class Class, Major Class, Major, Desktop
Spreadsheets Class
PPT Class Class, Desktop Class, Desktop, Major
Graphic software Desktop Desktop, Major
Video/audio files Desktop
Webpages Class Major Class, Major, Desktop
Blogs Class Class, Desktop
Online library Desktop Desktop, Class
OS Desktop
Maintenance Desktop Desktop, Gender Desktop, Gender, Class
Security Desktop Desktop, Class Desktop, Class, Gender

105
 Table 4.40
Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT Skills for Word
Processing

Change Statistics
R Adjusted Std. Error of R Square Sig.
Model R Square R Square the Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 F Change
1 .283(a) .080 .078 .790 .080 49.917 1 574 .000
2 .302(b) .091 .088 .786 .011 7.095 1 573 .008
3 .318(c) .101 .096 .782 .010 6.322 1 572 .012
a Predictors: (Constant), class b Predictors: (Constant), class, major
c Predictors: (Constant), class, major, desktop d Dependent Variable: word

Table 4.41
Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT Skills for
Spreadsheets
Change Statistics
R Adjusted Std. Error of R Square Sig. F
Model R Square R Square the Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change
1 .160(a) .025 .024 .853 .025 14.997 1 574 .000
a Predictors: (Constant), class b Dependent Variable: spreadsheets

Table 4.42
Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT Skills for
Presentation Software
Change Statistics
R Adjusted Std. Error of R Square Sig.
Model R Square R Square the Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 F Change
1 .518(a) .269 .267 1.034 .269 210.546 1 573 .000
2 .559(b) .312 .310 1.003 .043 36.060 1 572 .000
3 .568(c) .323 .319 .996 .011 9.249 1 571 .002
a Predictors: (Constant), class b Predictors: (Constant), class, desktop
c Predictors: (Constant), class, desktop, major d Dependent Variable: presentation
software

106
Table 4.43
Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT Skills for
Graphics

Change Statistics
R Adjusted Std. Error of R Square Sig. F
Model R Square R Square the Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change
1 .233(a) .054 .053 .961 .054 32.881 1 573 .000
2 .264(b) .070 .066 .954 .015 9.459 1 572 .002
a Predictors: (Constant), desktop b Predictors: (Constant), desktop, major
c Dependent Variable: graphics

Table 4.44
Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT Skills for
Video/Audio Files

Change Statistics
R Adjusted Std. Error of R Square Sig. F
Model R Square R Square the Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change
1 .248(a) .061 .060 .872 .061 37.507 1 573 .000
a Predictors: (Constant), desktop b Dependent Variable: audio/video files

Table 4.45
Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT Skills for
Webpages
Change Statistics
R Adjusted Std. Error of R Square F Sig. F
Model R Square R Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change
1 .381(a) .145 .144 .991 .145 97.222 1 573 .000
2 .406(b) .165 .162 .981 .020 13.680 1 572 .000
3 .425(c) .181 .176 .972 .016 10.885 1 571 .001
a Predictors: (Constant), class b Predictors: (Constant), class, major

Table 4.46
Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT Skills for Blogs
Std. Error Change Statistics
R Adjusted of the R Square F Sig.
Model R Square R Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 F Change
1 .313(a) .098 .096 .941 .098 62.126 1 573 .000
2 .328(b) .108 .105 .937 .010 6.441 1 572 .011
a Predictors: (Constant), class b Predictors: (Constant), class, desktop
c Dependent Variable: blogs

107
Table 4.47
Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT Skills for Online
Library Resources
Std. Error Change Statistics
R Adjusted of the R Square F Sig. F
Model R Square R Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change
1 .214(a) .046 .044 1.074 .046 27.376 1 573 .000
2 .236(b) .056 .052 1.070 .010 6.160 1 572 .013
a Predictors: (Constant), desktop b Predictors: (Constant), desktop, class
c Dependent Variable: online library

Table 4.48
Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT Skills for
Operating System
Std. Error Change Statistics
R Adjusted of the R Square Sig. F
Model R Square R Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change
1 .298(a) .089 .087 1.067 .089 55.765 1 574 .000
a Predictors: (Constant), desktop b Dependent Variable: OS

Table 4.49
Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT Skills for
Computer Maintenance
Std. Error Change Statistics
R Adjusted of the R Square Sig.
Model R Square R Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 F Change
1 .460(a) .211 .210 .950 .211 153.521 1 573 .000
2 .483(b) .234 .231 .938 .022 16.715 1 572 .000
3 .503(c) .253 .250 .926 .020 15.119 1 571 .000
a Predictors: (Constant), desktop b Predictors: (Constant), desktop, gender
c Predictors: (Constant), desktop, gender, class d Dependent Variable: maintenance

108
Table 4.50
Model Summary for Stepwise Multiple Regression of Perceived ICT Skills for
Security
Std. Error Change Statistics
R Adjusted of the R Square Sig.
Model R Square R Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 F Change
1 .482(a) .232 .231 1.099 .232 173.104 1 573 .000
2 .501(b) .251 .248 1.087 .019 14.482 1 572 .000
3 .510(c) .260 .256 1.081 .009 6.823 1 571 .009
a Predictors: (Constant), desktop b Predictors: (Constant), desktop, class
c Predictors: (Constant), desktop, class, gender d Dependent Variable: security

Concerns

The students were asked to report their concerns regarding their use of ICT

by choosing one of four categories (1=not a concern, 2=small concern, 3=significant

concern, and 4=major concern). As shown in Table 4.51, they were most concerned

about troubleshooting, followed by slow or inadequate network access and computer

viruses, worms or Trojan horses. Inadequate access to printing was not a big concern

of the students. They were not much worried about spam and the age of computer

hardware and software, either. More details about students concerns are shown in

Figures 4.2-4.8.

109
Table 4.51
Means and Standard Deviations for Students Concerns

Concern Mean (SD)

My technical skill level in troubleshooting my computer (n=552) 2.70 (.863)
Slow or inadequate network access (n=562) 2.60 (.879)
Computer viruses, worms, or Trojan horses (n=552) 2.41 (.893)
Inadequate technical assistance and help (n=520) 2.18 (.891)
The age of my computer hardware and software (n=547) 1.86 (.843)
Spam (n=546) 1.82 (.795)
Inadequate access to printing (n=549) 1.58 (.728)

Figure 4.2
Printing
60

50

40
Percent

30
55.4
20
33
10 1.3
10.4
0
not a concern small concern significant major
concern concern

110
 Figure 4.3
Computer Age
40

30
Percent

20 39.5 39.1

10 4
17.4

0
not a concern small concern significant major
concern concern

Figure 4. 4
Network Access
50

40
Percent

30

20 41.1
32.4
10 18
8.5
0
not a concern small concern significant major
concern concern

111
 Figure 4.5
Troubleshooting
50

40
Percent

30

44.9
20

28.4
10
17.2
9.4
0
not a concern small concern significant major
concern concern

Figure 4.6
Viruses, worms, or Trojan horses
40

30
Percent

20
35.5 36.8

10
17.2
10.5
0
not a concern small concern significant major
concern concern

112
 Figure 4.7
Spam
50

40
Percent

30

42.9
20 39.4

10
14.7 3.1

0
not a concern small concern significant major
concern concern

Figure 4.8
Technical Assistance and Help
50

40
Percent

30

44.6
20

10
23.3 23.1

9
0
not a concern small concern significant major
concern concern

113
 Use of ICT in Learning English

Weekly Hours Using ICT in Learning English

The participants reported that they spent fewer hours using ICT in learning

English than using ICT for pleasure and other general activities. According to Table

4.52, the majority of them (88.4%) spent less than five hours per week ICT for

studying English. Only 3.2% of the participants spent more than 10 hours per week

using ICT for studying English (see Figure 4.9) while 24.6% of them spent more than

10 hours per week using ICT for general purposes (see Figure 4.1).

Table 4.52
Weekly Hours Spent on ICT Use for Studying English

N= 585
Do not use 68 (11.6%)
Less than an hour 160 (27.4%)
1-2 hours 149 (25.5%)

3-5 hours 140 (23.9%)

6-10 hours 49 (8.4%)

11-15 hours 8 (1.4%)
16-20 hours 2 (.3%)
More than 20 hours 9 (1.5%)

114
 Figure 4.9
Weekly Hours Using ICT for Studying English
30 27.35%
25.47%
23.93%
25

20
11.62%

15 8.38%

1.37%
10
0.34%
1.54%
5

0
do not Less 1-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 more
use than hours hours hours hours hours than
an 20
hour hours

Perceived Usefulness of ICT in Learning English

The students perceived that the use of ICT would be beneficial to enhance

their listening, speaking, and vocabulary. Specifically, 75.9% of them either agreed or

strongly agreed that the use of ICT improved their ability in listening, as Table 4.53

and 4.54 show. Although almost half of the students remained neutral concerning the

benefits of using ICT in reading, writing, and grammar, a large number of them either

disagreed or strongly disagreed that the use of ICT would enhance their ability in

reading (31.5%), writing (32.8%) and grammar (41.7%), as shown in Table 4.54. In

addition, the majority of the students were skeptical about the use of ICT learning

grammar. These findings deserve further investigation to see where the students

disagreements and agreements came from.

Table 4.53

115
Means and Standard Deviations for the Effects of ICT Use on Improving English
Skills

Reading Writing Speaking Listening Grammar Vocabulary

Valid N 581 581 580 584 583 582
Missing 10 10 11 7 8 9
Mean (SD) 2.89 2.81 3.29 3.85 2.62 3.20
SD .885 .811 1.001 .821 .769 .909
Note: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree

Table 4.54
Percentages of the Effects of ICT Use on Improving English Skills
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
Reading 6.0% 25.5% 43.4% 23.6% 1.5%
Writing 5.3% 27.5% 48.4% 18.2% 0.5%
Speaking 4.7% 16.7% 32.4% 37.2% 9.0%
Listening 1.5% 5.3% 17.3% 58.6% 17.3%
Grammar 6.9% 34.8% 48.9% 8.7% 0.7%
Vocabulary 3.8% 17.2% 39.3% 34.9% 4.8%

ICT Preferences in English Courses

With regard to ICT preferences in their English courses, the mean was 3.23

(SD= .845) on a scale of one to five, indicating that most of the students preferred a

moderate level of technology in their English courses. Over 80% of the students said

that they preferred either moderate or extensive use of technology in their English

courses, as shown in Table 4.55. However, only 1.7% of the students reported they

preferred taking courses using ICT exclusively, suggesting that a course delivered

entirely via technology was not favored by the students.

Table 4.55
ICT Preferences in English Courses

116
 Preferences N (%)
I prefer taking courses that use no information technology. 24 (4.1%)
I prefer taking courses that use limited technology features 75 (12.8%)
I prefer taking courses that use a moderate level of technology 240 (41.0%)
I prefer taking courses that use technology extensively 236 (40.3%)
I prefer taking courses that use technology exclusively 10 (1.7%)

The results of a one-way ANOVA revealed that class was significantly

related to students preferences for ICT use in their English courses (F (3,581)=3.447,

p <.05), with seniors having the highest preference for technology in their English

courses and freshmen having the least preference, as shown in Table 4.56 and 4.57.

However, the follow-up Tukey showed no significance between the groups. Therefore,

other post-hoc tests were performed to find out all possible circumstances, and the

Dunnett revealed senior students preferred having significantly more technology

features in their English courses than freshmen did. The ANOVA showed that ICT

preferences had no significant relationship with gender and major.

Table 4.56
Means and Standard Deviations for Class and ICT Preferences
Class Mean (SD)
Freshman (n=446) 3.17 (.864)
Sophomore (n=30) 3.33 (.661)
Junior (n=90) 3.41 (.967)
Senior (n=19) 3.58 (.507)
Total (N=585) 3.23 (.845)

Table 4.57

117
 Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Class on ICT Preferences
SS df F Sig. Dunnett
Between Groups 7.287 3 3.447 .016 1-4
Within Groups 409.475 581
Total 416.762 584

An independent t-test was computed to determine if there was a significant

relationship between desktop ownership and ICT preferences. As Table 4.58 shows,

the difference in ICT preferences between desktop owners and non-owners was

statistically significant, indicating that desktop owners preferred more technology

integration in English courses than non-owners (t (583) =2.745, p<0.05).

Table 4.58
Differences in ICT Preferences by Desktop Ownership
Mean and Standard Deviation of Mean and Standard Deviation of
Desktop Owners (n=185) Desktop Non-Owners (n=400) t df p
3.37 (.748) 3.16 (.879) 2.745 583 .006

A significant relationship between students self-assessed ICT skills on a

scale of one to five, one being much less skilled and five being much more skilled,

and their ICT preferences in English courses was found by one-way ANOVA (F (2,

577) = 6.608, p<.01), as shown in Table 4.59 and 4.60. The follow-up Tukey test

revealed that:

(1) Those who rated themselves having about the same level skills liked

significantly more technology-enhanced features in their English

courses than those who reported much less/less skilled.

118
 (2) Those who rated themselves as much more/more skilled liked

significantly more technology integration in their English courses than

those who rated themselves as having about the same levels.

Table 4.59
Means and Standard Deviations for Perceived Skills and ICT Preferences
Mean of ICT Preferences (SD)
Much less skilled & Less Skilled (n=230) 3.09 (.862)
About the same skill level (n=281) 3.28 (.822)
Much more skilled & More skilled (n=69) 3.46 (.833)
Total (N=580) 3.23 (.848)

Table 4.60
Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Perceived Skills on ICT
Preferences
SS df F Sig. Tukey
Between Groups 9.314 2 6.608 .001 1-2, 1-3
Within Groups 406.644 577
Total 415.959 579

Impact of ICT Use in English Courses

The students were given eight questions regarding the impact of ICT use in

English courses. Based on a scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 =

neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree, the mean scores were about 3 or slightly

above 3, which indicates that the students had a neutral feeling toward the use of ICT

in their English courses. As Table 4.61 shows, the highest means were given to better

understanding of complex or abstract concepts (mean = 3.38), prompt feedback from

instructors (mean = 3.35), more engaged in courses (mean = 3.34), and increasing

interests in the subject matter (mean = 3.33). On the other hand, improving

communication and collaboration with classmates received the lowest scores (mean =

119
2.99). In other words, the students did not feel that the use of technology in English

courses would enhance communications with their classmates. This might be

influenced by their lack of experience in using ICT for collaboration or

communication in their English courses.

Table 4.61
Means and Standard Deviations for the Impact of ICT in English Courses
Mean (SD)
I am more engaged in courses that require me to use technology (n= 554). 3.34 (.818)
The instructors use of technology in my courses has increased my interest 3.33 (.911)
in the subject matter (n=555).
I primarily use information technology in courses to improve the 3.25 (.896)
presentation of my work (n=554)
The use of information technology in courses has helped me better 3.38 (.881)
understand complex or abstract concepts (n=576).
The use of information technology in courses has helped me better 3.07 (.890)
communicate with my instructors (n=568).
The use of information technology in courses has helped me better 2.99 (.873)
communicate and collaborate with my classmates (n=567).
The use of information technology in courses has resulted in prompt 3.35 (.931)
feedback from my instructors (n=568).
Courses that use information technology allow me to take greater control of 3.10 (.968)
my course activities (n=530).
Note: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree

Overall, the students rated their instructors ICT skills favorably (mean=3.42), as

shown in Table 4.62. As Figure 4.10 clearly indicates, half of the students agreed to

the statement, My instructors use information technology well in my courses, while

9.39% of them did not think that their instructors used technology well. A slightly

more than 40% of the students remained neutral.

120
Table 4.62
Means and Standard Deviations for Instructors ICT Skills Perceived by Students
Overall, my instructors use information technology well in my courses (n=554). 3.42 (.767)
Note: Disagree, Neutral, Agree

Figure 4.10
Instructors ICT Skills
50

40
Percent

30
50.0%
20 40.61%

10
9.39%
0
disagree neutral agree

According to Table 4.63, the ANOVA results showed that students perceptions

of instructors ICT skills had a significant effect on their perceptions of the impact of

ICT on (a) engagement (F (4, 544) = 7.601, p<.05), (b) increasing interests (F (4, 546)

= 10.008, p<.05), (c) improving communication with instructors (F (4, 545)= 7.992,

p<.05), (d) prompt feedback from instructors (F (4, 546) = 4.978, p<.05), and (e)

control of course activities (F (4, 503) = 5.491, p<.05).

121
Table 4.63
Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Instructors ICT Skills on ICT Use

SS df F Sig. Tukey
Engaged Between Groups 13.404 2 10.468 .000* 1-2, 1-3, 2-3
Within Groups 349.580 546
Total 362.984 548
Interest Between Groups 24.224 2 15.413 .000* 1-3, 2-3
Within Groups 430.626 548
Total 454.849 550
Presentation Between Groups 2.015 2 1.252 .287
Within Groups 439.279 546
Total 441.293 548
Abstracts Between Groups 6.771 2 4.384 .013
Within Groups 424.744 550
Total 431.515 552
Communications Between Groups
19.908 2 13.035 .000* 1-3, 2-3
with Instructor
Within Groups 417.735 547
Total 437.644 549
Collaboration Between Groups 3.050 2 2.002 .136
Within Groups 416.833 547
Total 419.884 549
Feedback Between Groups 16.196 2 9.606 .000* 1-3, 2-3
Within Groups 461.975 548
Total 478.171 550
Control Between Groups 11.311 2 6.311 .002* 2-3
Within Groups 452.524 505
Total 463.835 507
*p< .006 after Bonferroni correction based on p<.05.

The most important finding was that there was a critical need for adequate

ICT training programs in relation to English courses. According to Table 4.64 and

Figure 4.11, almost 70% of the students agreed (37.52%) or strongly agreed (31.6%)

to the statement, my school needs to give me more training on the information

technology that I am required to use in my courses.

122
 Table 4.64
Means and Standard Deviations for the Need of ICT Training
My school needs to give me more training on the information technology 3.89 (1.013)
that I am required to use in my courses (n=557).
Note: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree

Figure 4.11
Need of ICT Training

40

30 21.9%
Percent

20 37.52%
31.6%
6.1%

10 2.87%

0
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

The ANOVA results showed a significant relationship between class and the

need of ICT training (F (3, 553) = 6.893, p<.01), as shown in Table 4.65 and 4.66.

Moreover, according to the follow-up Tukey test, freshmen wanted to receive ICT

training significantly more than juniors did.

123
 Table 4.65
Means and Standard Deviations for Class and the Need of ICT Training

Class Mean (SD)

Freshman (n=424) 3.98 (1.009)
Sophomore (n=29) 3.93 (.998)
Junior (n=86) 3.51 (.967)
Senior (n=18) 3.39 (.850)
Total (N=557) 3.89 (1.013)

Table 4.66
Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Class on the Need of ICT Training
SS df F Sig. Tukey
Between Groups 20.586 3 6.893 .000 1-3
Within Groups 550.513 553
Total 571.099 556

Furthermore, according to Table 4.67 and 4.68, the ANOVA found that there

was a significant relationship between students self-rated ICT skills and their need

for training (F (4, 547) = 4.428, p<.01). The Tukey post hoc test also suggested that

those who rated themselves as less skilled/much less skilled wanted to receive

technology training significantly more than moderately skilled students and much

more skilled/ more skilled students.

Table 4.67
Means and Standard Deviations for Self-rating Technology Skills
and the Need of ICT Training
Mean (SD)
Much less skilled & Less skilled (n=219) 4.08 (.983)
About the same skill level (n=267) 3.81 (.980)
Much more skilled & More skilled (n=66) 3.59 (1.123)
Total (N=552) 3.89 (1.011)

124
Table 4.68
Summary of One-Way ANOVA for the Effects of Self-rating Technology Skills
on the Need of ICT Training

SS Df F Sig. Tukey
Between Groups 15.745 2 7.891 .000 1-2, 1-3
Within Groups 547.734 549
Total 563.478 551

Technology Components in English Courses

As for the question about technology components they would like their

instructors to use in English courses, a total of 2057 responses were collected from

573 students (missing = 18). The fact that this particular question attracted a large

number of responses suggests that the students wanted to have a variety of technology

components integrated in their English courses. Multimedia components including

digital images were most wanted by the students (18.0%), followed by PowerPoint

presentations (17.5%), course materials available online (12.4%), computer

simulations and games (12.1%), and online discussion boards (12.0%) (see Table

4.69).

Table 4.69

125
Technology Components Wanted by Students for English Courses
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Course web site 213 10.4 10.4 10.4
PowerPoint presentations 360 17.5 17.5 27.9
Digital images, multimedia
371 18.0 18.0 45.9
components
Online course materials 256 12.4 12.4 58.3
Online discussion board 247 12.0 12.0 70.3
Technology-mediated projects 134 6.5 6.5 76.9
Computer simulations and
248 12.1 12.1 88.9
games
Webcasting 228 11.1 11.1 100.0
Total 2057 100.0 100.0
* Multiple answers were allowed.

Summary of Key Findings and Conclusion

This chapter reported the quantitative results from close-ended questions. The results

of statistical analyses were as follows:

(1) Ownership levels of ICTs were quite low.

(2) Over 80% of the participants had access to broadband.

(3) The majority of the participants spent three to ten hours weekly using ICT for

general purposes.

(4) The activities most engaged in by the participants included surfing the

Internet for fun, downloading or listening to music or video, sending e-mail,

and doing classroom activities.

(5) Only 12% of the participants rated themselves as highly skilled compared to

colleagues.

(6) Class and desktop ownership were the factors contributing most to the

126
 participants perceived ICT skill levels.

(7) The participants were concerned about troubleshooting, inadequate network

access, and computer viruses, and lack of technical help.

(8) The majority of the participants believed that they needed additional training

to use ICT in English courses.

(9) Almost 40% of the participants reported that they spent less than one hour per

week using ICT for studying English.

(10) The participants preferred having a moderate to extensive amount of ICT

features in English courses.

(11) The participants believed that the use of ICT would improve their skills in

speaking, listening, and vocabulary. However, they were somewhat

skeptical about the effects of ICT use for improving skills in reading,

writing, and grammar.

Further discussion and implications are presented in Chapter 6.

127
 Chapter 5
Results of Qualitative Questions

This chapter serves to answer Research Questions 5, 6, 7, and 8, presenting

findings from qualitative questions:

Question 5: What are the participants reason(s) to learn English?

Question 6: How do they perceive English, computers, the Internet, and learning

English?

Question 7: What are their perceived benefits of using ICT in learning English?

Question 8: What are their perceived barriers to using ICT in learning English?

In the first part of this chapter, participants motivational orientations toward

learning English are discussed, followed by the results of analyzing metaphors for

English and learning English. The second part presents (a) metaphors for computers

and the Internet, (b) the participants perceived benefits of using ICT, and (c) the

participants perceived barriers to integrating ICT into learning English.

Perceptions about English

This section consists of two major parts: (a) motivational orientations and (b)

metaphors for English and learning English. Emerging patterns and categories show

what motivated the participants to learn English and how they perceived the English

language and the process of learning English.

128
Motivational Orientations

For the open-ended question that asked to report reason(s) for learning

English, 549 students out of 591 wrote their answers (missing=39, dont know =3),

and many of them gave more than one reason. In total, 764 accounts were elicited,

and seven major categories were emerged while analyzing the data, as shown in Table

5.1.

Table 5.1
Students Motivational Orientations to Learning English
Category # Accounts Percentage
1. To prepare for the future 359 47%
2. To communicate with the world 181 24%
3. To acquire skills, information and knowledge, 85 11%
and to learn other subjects
4. For personal growth 49 6%
5. Personal interest in foreign culture 43 6%
6. To master a foreign language 37 5%
7. For entertainment 7 0.9%
Total 764 99.9%*
* Multiple answers were accepted. * Dont know (3 accounts)

The results showed that the dominant reason (359 accounts, 47%) for

studying English was to prepare the future. This category contained the following

reasons: (a) to pass exams and get certificates, (b) to be prepared for life, work and

study in the near future, (c) to meet the societys needs, (d) to meet the university

requirements for graduation, (e) to get a good job, and (f) to go abroad for traveling

and study. The results indicated that the students were aware of the significant role

English could play in their future career, as they considered learning English as a way

to increase the quality of life. Putting it differently, the social contexts in which the

129
students were situated demanded them to achieve a certain level of English (e.g.

passing Band 4 and taking required English courses for graduation), and they were

actively engaged in the process of securing a space of their own in the social world by

acquiring English. For example, a student clearly stated, It is a necessary quality

possessed by people in the modern society, and it is a tool that should be learned to

become a part of the society. Similarly, another student noted, (I learn English) to

adapt myself to the globalizing world and changing economy. It is undoubtedly

related to Gardners (1985) instrumental motivation in that practical and utilitarian

values attached to the English language seemed to be a driving force for the students

to acquire it. The fact that the students frequently mentioned the word future

suggested that they were an active agent in planning and designing their future

through English. Thus, it would be more appropriate to understand that they were

making a great deal of effort to expand possibilities and arenas for the future, as

referred by Norton (1995, 1997) to an investment in the future.

The second most frequent reason for learning English (181 accounts, 24%)

was to be able to communicate with the world. This is a powerful finding for several

reasons. First, it indicates that the students perceived EIL used in communicating and

cooperating with the world instead of a foreign language that belongs merely to

countries with it as their native language. Second, it expresses their desire to

participate in the world and keep pace with the times. This also reflects the significant

historical situation in which the students reside - Chinas opening to the world. Third,

it calls for the reconceptualization of language learning orientations in EFL settings

based on the changing status of the English language in an age of globalization, as

130
already addressed by many scholars (Chen, Warden, & Chang, 2005; Drnyei &

Csizr, 2002; Lamb, 2004; Rahman, 2005).

Numerous students (85 accounts, 11%) also said that they studied English to

acquire skills, information and knowledge, and to help them learn other subjects.

Some of examples include: (I learn English) to better learn advanced technology and

knowledge from foreign countries, to master technology skills and to read

English materials to obtain up-to-date information for my major. Again, it is

speculated that the students were well aware of one of these major benefits of using

EIL in the 21st century, as well as its impact on the construction of knowledge

(Warschauer, 2001), which also suggests the impact of the globalization process on

motivational orientations of university students in an Asian EFL setting.

In the fourth category (49 accounts, 6%), learning English for personal growth,

comments like to perfect myself, to enrich myself, to broaden my horizons, and

to cultivate my ability reflect Chinese students cultural beliefs about learning. As

Li (2001, 2003) documented in her research, Chinese students, influenced by the

Confucian learning model, tend to regard seeking knowledge as a need to perfect

oneself and as a lifelong commitment. For this reason, Chinese students orientation

to learning is quite different from that of the western world, as Li (20002) argued,

Learning appears more fundamental in Chinese lives than does achievement

per seChinese peoples orientation to lifelong learning, instead of
achievement itself, may well be responsible for their higher levels of
achievement. (p. 263-264)

131
 Some students (43 accounts, 6%) reported that they learned English because

of their personal interest in foreign cultures. The most frequent statement in this

category was to learn about western culture although only one student mentioned

British and American culture. In fact, several statements revealed that the students

were more likely to study English for a better understanding of different cultures (or

different countries), not just wanting to psychologically and emotionally integrate

into any particular culture of native speakers of English, as Gardner (2001) claimed.

Moreover, one student noted that English ability helped to learn western culture and,

at the same time, promote Chinese culture, which seems an indication of developing

a bi-cultural identity, in which part of their identity is rooted in their local culture

while another part stems from an awareness of their relation to the global culture

(Arnett, 2002, p. 777), as a consequence of globalization.

A relatively small number of students (37 accounts, 5%) mentioned that they

studied English to master a foreign language besides their mother tongue. One student

even expressed a desire to speak English as fluently as Chinese. However, it is hard to

see this category as a completely separate reason without further elaboration (i.e., the

reason to master an additional language).

The last category (7 accounts, 0.9%) was learning English for entertainment

including comments like, learning English for fun, to play games, and because it

is my hobby. Seven respondents stated such reasons.

132
Metaphors 1

Participants were asked to present metaphors for (a) English and (b) learning

English. Most of the responses were very short, straightforward, and explicit, without

a great deal of elaboration. The metaphors were sorted into coherent categories and

grouped together (Ellis, 2002), instead of using predetermined categories. Then, the

groupings were presented according to frequency, using the frame English as X,

Computers as X, the Internet as X, and Learning English as X.

Metaphors about English

A total of 465 metaphors were collected for the English language. Table 5.2

summarizes 10 major categories that contained more than 10 coherent themes.

Table 5.2
Metaphors Representing English
Metaphor # Accounts Percentage
1. English as Tool 150 32%
2. English as Connector 74 16%
3. English as Key 54 12%
4a. English as ID 21 5%
4b. English as Road 21 5%
6. English as Window 17 4%
7. English as Evil 15 3%
8. English as Common Language 13 3%
9. English as Vehicle 12 3%
10. English as Assistant 11 2%
* Total # 465

The English as Tool (150 accounts, 32%) metaphor was a single dominant

category that almost one-third of the participants reported. Specifically, 110 students

133
explicitly mentioned the word, tool, for the English language. They perceived

English as a useful, indispensable tool used to communicate, get a good job, and

obtain information and knowledge. Some students came up with a more specific,

interesting metaphor that had similar connotation, such as weapon, medium, shoes (to

help go), walking stick, telescope, and traveling bag.

The English as Connector (74 accounts, 16%) was the metaphor, which arose

second most frequently from the responses, including (a) bridge, (b) link, (c) channel,

(d) canal, and (e) line. In particular, the metaphor of bridge appeared in 53 out of 74

accounts. Examples are English as: (a) the bridge of communication, (b) the bridge to

success (c) the bridge of friendship, (d) the bridge connecting the world, and (e) the

bridge in joint ventures.

The third category was English as Key (54 accounts, 12%). The participants

clearly specified English as a key to: (a) the world, (b) other peoples minds, (c) the

door of a postgraduate school, and (d) foreign countries. Two interesting comments in

this category were English is an omnipotent key and English is a golden key to

unlock the door of the world.

The metaphors of English as ID and English as Road were also frequent, as

appeared in 21 accounts each. The English as ID metaphor (21 accounts, 5%)

included: (a) passport, (b) ID card, (c) qualification ticket, and (d) passenger ticket.

The respondents seemed to equate acquiring English with having a passport that lets

them go everywhere in the world or an ID card, which is a must for living as a citizen

in a society. As for the English as Road metaphor (21 accounts, 5%), the participants

univocally related mastering English to getting on a road to success. This also

134
happened for the sixth category, English as Window (17 accounts, 4%), as some of

them stated that English is a window through which they could envision success.

The seventh category, English as Evil (15 accounts, 3%), exhibited the

animosity that some of the participants had against the English language. Such

animosity was presented in the form of (a) devil, (b) enemy, (c) opium (a symbol of

cultural invasion from the West), (d) a scary animal (e.g., tiger getting in the way and

a saber-rattling wolf), and (e) a sharp knife.

The English as Common Language metaphor (13 accounts, 3%) showed that

the participants perceived English as a lingua franca. They stated that English is (a)

our common language, (b) a world language, (c) an international language, and (d) a

language that brings convenience to our life.

As for the English as Vehicle metaphor (12 accounts, 3%), the participants

came up with several types of transportation such as boat, ship, car, and train.

Although almost none of them gave further clarification as to vehicles that they

mentioned, two statements provided useful elaboration: English is a boat sailing into

the wonderful future and English is a famous car running on the road.

Finally, the English as Assistant metaphor (11 accounts, 3%) included (a)

assistant, (b) carrier, (c) guide, (d) ambassador and (e) simultaneous interpreter. It

appeared that such metaphors are similar to the English as Tool metaphor, as it helped

to do a better job.

135
Metaphors about Learning English

Because of the previous question about English, most responses for learning

English were very much similar to the ones already presented. The only difference

was that the participants perceived learning English as a process in some accounts.

Thus, instead of repeating the same metaphors, I present four new categories of

metaphors for learning English that did not appear earlier: (a) Learning English as

Hardship (83 accounts), (b) Learning English as Acquiring Skills (45 accounts), (c)

Learning English as Preparation (42 accounts), and (d) Learning English as Joy (34

accounts).

In relation to the Learning English as Hardship metaphor, the participants

frequently used adjectives indicating difficulty such as hard, suffering, harsh, arduous,

long, and bitter. They perceived learning English as torture (e.g., drilling for the war,

committing suicide, blood and tears, battle, and forcing a hen to lay an egg), as

obstacles getting in their way (e.g., burden on my shoulders, rocks on the road to

success, and getting disease,), as a long, tedious process (e.g., climbing the worlds

highest mountain, an arduous 25 thousand-mile march and a marathon) and as a harsh

challenge (e.g., sailing against the current).

With regard to the metaphor, Learning English as Acquiring Skills,

considering that the majority of the participants saw English as a tool, it seemed quite

natural to see the response, Learning English is learning how to use the tool to

acquire skills, many times as a follow-up answer. The participants also perceived

Learning English as Preparation for their future. Some interesting metaphors shown

in this category were Learning English as: (a) building a bridge, (b) paving the way

136
for the future, (c) preparing a journey, (d) applying for a passport, and (e) forging a

sword.

The Learning English as Joy metaphor included some appealing metaphors

such as (a) having bread when hungry, (b) taking an exciting journey, (c) savoring

wine, (d) singing songs, and (e) appreciating an essay.

Summary of Perceptions about English

The results showed that the participants held utilitarian views toward English.

By acquiring English, they strongly wanted to (a) improve their future, (b)

communicate with the world, and (c) get access to up-to-date information. Keeping

this in mind, I now turn to their perceptions about technology.

Perceptions about Technology

In this section, the findings are organized into three areas: (a) metaphors for

computers and the Internet, (b) perceived benefits of using ICT, and (c) perceived

barriers of adopting ICT into English courses.

Metaphors 2

Participants were also asked to present metaphors for (a) computers and (b)

the Internet. Again, the data were classified into coherent groups, and then presented

them according to frequency.

137
Metaphors about Computers

As for metaphors for computers, there were 460 accounts collected. Table 5.3

illustrates nine major categories that had more than ten relevant themes.

Table 5.3
Metaphors Representing Computers
Metaphor # Accounts Percentage
1. Computers as Tool 122 27%
2. Computers as Helper 59 13%
3. Computers as Window 42 9%
4. Computers as Key 36 8%
5. Computers as Human Body 32 7%
6. Computers as Friend 25 5%
7. Computers as Connector 23 5%
8. Computers as Container 22 5%
9. Computers as Vehicle 20 4%
* Total #460

The Computer as Tool metaphor (122 accounts, 27%) was most frequent, as

it was for the English language. The vast majority of the participants noted that

computers are a powerful tool for learning, work, communication and entertainment.

Other metaphors frequently reported in this category described computers as: (a)

machine, (b) reference (e.g., dictionary and encyclopedia), (c) weapon, (d) shoes, and

(e) eye-related tools (e.g., kaleidoscope, telescope, and a pair of glasses). In addition,

there were several interesting metaphors such as a remote controller, a supernatural

pen, a hunters gun, and an ax used to explore a mine.

The second category, the Computer as Helper metaphor (59 accounts 13%),

suggested that the participants perceived computers as helping hands that would

enhance their work performance. Most of the accounts in this category involved

138
computers as assistant, and some adjectives appeared, from time to time, like

capable, efficient, erudite, and accurate. Other frequent metaphors in this

category included: (a) secretary, (b) servant, (c) carrier, and (d) teacher.

The Computer as Window metaphor (42 accounts, 9%) was also popular with

the participants, which could be partially attributed to the fact that the Microsoft

Windows is the most widely-used operating system in the world today. The

participants rarely gave further explanation but the term, window.

The Computer as Key metaphor (36 accounts, 8%) ranked fourth. A couple of

responses in this category indicated that some of the participants might see computers

as a panacea, saying computers as an omnipotent key and computers as a multi-

functional key.

The fifth category, Computer as Human Body (32 accounts, 7%), was very

intriguing in that computers were seen as vital organs in the human body. The most

frequent metaphors within this category described the computers as a brain, as hands,

and as eyes. Other metaphors were arms, nerve, and gland. The human metaphor

continued to appear in the sixth category, Computer as Friend (25 accounts, 5%).

This category included various metaphors like friend, companion, co-partner, lover,

and wife.

The Computer as Connector metaphor (e.g., bridge, link, channel, and transfer

station) (23 accounts, 5%) indicated the fact that computers and the Internet are

inseparable these days. The eighth category was Computer as Container (22 accounts,

5%). In this category, the participants perceived computers as (a) a box, (b) a

storehouse, and (c) database in which they could store information, knowledge,

139
memory, and other personal files.

The Computer as Vehicle metaphor (20 accounts, 4%) involved two types of

vehicles: (a) transportation in the real world (e.g., boat, ship, bus, and car), and (b)

vehicles from the participants imagination. Those non-existent vehicles were a flying

carpet and a time machine.

There were some other interesting metaphors, which were not included in any

of the nine categories, showing the participants ambivalent attitudes toward

computers. Examples are roses full of thorns, the source of good and bad, a

combination of convenience and complex, and the necessary road to corruption.

Metaphors about the Internet

A total of 458 metaphors were gathered for the Internet. Six categories

including more than 10 coherent metaphors were generated, as Table 5.4 indicates.

Table 5.4
Metaphors Representing the Internet
Metaphors # Accounts Percentage
1. the Internet as Connector 147 32%
2. the Internet as Window/Door 80 17%
3. the Internet as Place 75 16%
4. the Internet as Road 36 8%
5. the Internet as Sea 35 8%
6. the Internet as Person 15 3%
* Total # 458

The most dominant metaphor was the Internet as Connector (147 accounts,

32%). This category involved a vast array of metaphors. The Internet as a bridge

appeared most frequently, followed by the Internet as a link, the Internet as a net, and

140
the Internet as a channel. All of them indicated the symbolic role of the Internet in (a)

linking and connecting the world, and (b) reducing physical and psychological

distance between people. Other metaphors included traffic system, nerves, conveyer

belts, blood vessels, arteries, threads, and rope.

The Internet as Window/Door metaphor (80 accounts, 17%) was also popular.

For the participants, the Internet was a window through which they could reach the

world and display themselves to the world. In addition, the Internet was seen as a

door that could lead them to the world of opportunity.

The third category, the Internet as Place (75 accounts, 16%), involved various

places not only in the physical world but also in the virtual or imaginary world. This

is in part because the participants perceived the Internet as another world existing

online. In fact, the term, world appeared numerous times. Other metaphors related

to places were platform, storehouse, library, and museum, where knowledge,

information, and resources can be found, shared, stored and even generated. In

addition, metaphors like paradise, magic square, and amusement park suggested that

the participants perceived the Internet as an exciting place. On the contrary, there

were also some comments showing either negative or ambivalent attitudes toward the

Internet such as Mine with impurity, Cemetery shared by people, Complex

labyrinth, and Place where all kinds of fallacies occur.

The fourth category presented the Internet as Road (36 accounts, 8%) to a

remote place, the outside world, the world of information, and even to the mysterious

world. The fifth category suggested the Internet as Sea (35 accounts, 8%) of

information. In the fourth category, the participants perceived the Internet as Person

141
(15 accounts, 3%), who could either benefit or hurt them. Such metaphors included

information provider, assistant, friend, co-worker, a neighbor, lover, passerby in the

information age, and killer.

One last thing that should be noted is, several metaphors clearly showed the

participants negative feelings about the Internet, suggesting they were concerned

about the potentially harmful effects of the Internet. The metaphors included the

Internet as a combination of distillation and dregs, a trap full of seduction, something

that nourishes the root of evil, and even a monster.

Benefits of Technology Integration in Learning English

The majority of the participants in this study clearly understood that they

could benefit from adopting technology in learning English. As Table 5.6 summarizes,

their responses to benefits of using technology were classified into four major

categories: (a) learning, (b) convenience and efficiency, (c) motivation and (d) being

up-to-date.

Table 5.5
Students Perceived Benefits of Using Technology in Learning English
# Accounts Percentage
1. Improving learning 237 51%
2. Convenience and efficiency 173 37%
3. Increasing motivation 59 13%
4. Being up-to-date 20 4%
* Total # 466

The students saw the most valuable benefit of using technology as way to

improve learning (237 accounts, 51%). They liked using authentic materials through

142
technology, which enhanced their ability in listening (77 accounts), speaking (29

accounts), and vocabulary (13 accounts), as well as helping to better understand

foreign culture. This is consistent with the statistical results for students perceived

benefits of using ICT in increasing English skills, as discussed earlier. In relation to

language and culture, a student noted, Digital images and multimedia let me learn

culture of English-speaking countries directly. Another student said, (Technology)

vividly exhibit the charm of the English language. Furthermore, they appreciated the

fact that they could improve both English and technology skills at the same time

while being in a technology-integrated learning environment. It is partly because they

were well aware that gaining both skills would make them competitive in the

information society. In fact, numerous students stated that learning English through

technology helped them expand knowledge and broaden their horizons.

The students also spoke highly of convenience and efficiency (173 accounts,

37%). Their comments include, I dont have to take notes, It saves time, It is

convenient, fast, and real-time, I can learn at any time after class, and I can get

feedback in time. The participants especially felt that they could obtain learning

materials and information more conveniently and quickly when using technology.

Another aspect the students greatly valued was that using technology could

increase motivation to learn as well as create a genuine interest in English (59

accounts, 13%). They stated that it made studying English more fresh and

enjoyable than a more traditional way of learning English. Some examples of

remarks that were made include: It makes dull lessons interesting, and I can feast

my eyes (with technology).

143
 Being up-to-date was seen as one of the primary benefits of using technology

in learning English, as well (20 accounts, 4%). They liked to get the most recent

learning materials and current English usage through technology, as shown in the

remark, I can feel the pulse of current English while enjoying good TV programs

and films. Similarly, they understood that getting in touch with the latest

international news and information was a good way to keep pace with the very

rapidly changing world. A student echoed that ICT itself is connected with the

English language, and learning English through technology helps to obtain up-to-date

information and access to rich resources.

However, surprisingly, only three students reported that using technology

improved communication. From research findings indicating that one of the primary

benefits of using technology is to improve communication (Kvavik & Caruso, 2005),

it can be inferred that the students use of ICT in communicating with their teachers

and collaborating with classmates were very limited.

Barriers to Using ICT in Learning English

Students answers regarding their perceived barriers to the effective use of

ICT in learning English consisted of both technological and non-technological issues.

Those responses were classified into seven categories based on relevancy.

144
 Table 5.6
Students Perceived Barriers to Using Technology in Learning English
# Accounts Percentage
1. Non-affordability of technology, inadequate access and 97 21%
insufficient resources
2. Lack of technology skills 87 19%
3. Lack of English proficiency 79 17%
4. Cultural beliefs about learning 50 11%
5. Lack of guidance 45 10%
6. Insufficient human (face-to-face) interaction and 37 8%
communication
7. Lack of interest 21 5%
* Total #453

The biggest concern reported by the students was the exorbitant costs of

technology, inadequate access to the Internet and insufficient resources (97 accounts,

21%). They pointed out that the cost of new technologies and high-speed internet

service was too high for them to afford, and that there were not many good websites

or software for studying English. This reflects major problems China has faced

related to the digital divide within the nation described as an imbalance of diffusion

of ICTs infrastructure, high-online charges, insufficient qualified staff, imperfect

network legation, and information resources shortage in the Chinese language

(Wang, 2002, p. 538).

The second biggest concern was unfamiliarity with new, emerging

technologies and low technology skills (87 accounts, 19%). Many students stated that

they were not knowledgeable enough to take advantage of new technologies, and

even felt pressured by the fact that they had to master how to use the technology. The

third problem was limited English proficiency (79 accounts, 17%). Specifically, the

students perceived that their poor vocabulary and listening skills hindered their ability

145
to make the most of a technology-integrated, authentic language learning

environment.

They also came up with problems associated with their cultural beliefs about

learning and school practice (50 accounts, 11%). Examples of this included, I cannot

understand the essence of knowledge, I cannot take complete notes, I cannot

learn all the things by heart, The distinction between learning and playing is too

vague, Some questions are not answered, It is hard for me to be attentive, and

It makes me lazier, less active and less persistent.

The fifth barrier was a lack of proper guidance (45 accounts, 10%). The

students stated that they were not able to locate, evaluate or use the information and

learning materials needed on the Web, feeling overwhelmed by the abundance of

information. Several students mentioned that they had no one who could guide them

to use information effectively and efficiently. Another barrier noted by the students

was that technology integration reduces face-to-face interaction and real

communication in English courses (37 accounts, 8%). Particularly, they believed that

using technology would minimize their interaction and communication with teachers.

Other opinions included little interest in technology, getting tired eyes, and

inconvenience (21 accounts, 5%). In addition, there were some answers stimulating

curiosity about the nature of technology-integrated learning environment in which

they participated. Those statements were: I dont have many opportunities to

practice speaking and writing, Place and time in which learning happens are not

determined, and Information is not updated in a timely manner.

146
Summary of Perceptions about Technology

According to the results, the participants perceptions about technology,

specifically computers, were strongly associated with their perceptions about English.

The participants also perceived that ICT plays a critical role in improving their

learning. In addition, they had various concerns about the use of ICT in learning

English, such as lack of access, ICT skills, and guidance.

Summary of Key Findings and Conclusion

The qualitative results from open-ended questions supported the fact that

essential skills in the 21st century include acquiring proficiency in English and ICT.

Key findings are:

(1) Seven major categories of the participants motivational orientations

demonstrated that the participants were highly motivated by practical needs and

concerns.

(2) The majority of the participants perceived both English and Computers as Tool

(3) The participants reported learning (esp. communicative skills in English) as the

major benefit of using ICT in learning English.

(4) The participants reported that the primary benefit of ICT use is improved learning,

followed by convenience and efficiency.

(5) Lack of ICT access was perceived as the primary barrier to ICT use in learning

English, followed by (a) lack of fluency in English and ICT, (b) cultural beliefs

about learning, and (c) lack of guidance.

147
Based on the results, I provide detailed discussion and pedagogical implications in

Chapter 6.

148
 Chapter 6
Discussion and Implications
This is a time of challenge and a time for experiment. (Kellner, 2004, p.30)

Based on the findings discussed in previous chapters, this chapter presents

remaining challenges that need to be solved by researchers and educators, and then

provides practical and pedagogical implications. This chapter also offers my

speculations based on the studys results.

Redefining Basic Concepts and Terminology

The ESL/EFL dichotomy, the instrumental vs. integrative motivation, and the

bipolar concept of the digital divide might be outmoded according to this study. Here

I address three areas in which new ideas and themes might be warranted.

Does the ESL/EFL Dichotomy Still Make Sense?

The 40th anniversary issue of TESOL Quarterly published in March, 2006

includes an article by Jennifer Jenkins that documented a paradigm shift from English

as a native English (ENL), English as a second language (ESL) and English as a

foreign language (EFL) to World Englishes (WEs), English as a Lingua Franca (ELF)

and English as an International Language (EIL). As Jenkins commented herself in the

article, it is truly a breakthrough when considering how long we have been with the

ESL/EFL dichotomy. Jarvis (2005) similarly claimed that the ESL/EFL classification

is no longer appropriate because the language does not actually belong to the users;

it is foreign (alien), or it is second (not first)-this despite the fact that today these

149
users are now a majority (p. 219).

The presence of Jenkins article in the 40th anniversary issue turns our

attention to the question, Who really owns the English language in the age of

globalization? This question has been addressed by many researchers (Brutt-Griffler,

2002; Graddol, 1997; Jarvis, 2005; Kachru & Nelson, 2001; Kramsch, 1998; McKay,

2003; Phan Le Ha, 2005; Rajadurai, 2005; Seidlhofer, 2001; Sifakis, 2004;

Widdowson, 1994, 2000; Yano, 2001).

The participants in the current study were non-native speakers learning

English as a lingua franca, having a desire to promote social mobility, economic

ambition, and individual identity (Rajadurai, 2005, p.125) and to gain access to

scientific and technological information, international organizations, global economic

trade, and higher education (McKay, 2003, p. 4). Although they did not show a clear

sense of ownership of English, they explicated that their purposes for studying

English were mainly for a better future for themselves, but for internalizing native-

speakers cultural norms (McKay, 2003, 2004). In other word, the students specified

what they wanted to do or achieve (e.g., communicating with the world or acquiring

other skills) by becoming owners of English. As Hui (2001) confirmed, Chinese

students want to learn English mainly because it is the language they could share (p.

131) with a wider world, not because it is the native language of the United States or

any other English speaking countries. Such motivational orientations support

McKays (2003) assertion as to speakers of EIL.

150
 [M]any language learners today are studying English not because they are
being coerced to do so by speakers of Inner Circle countries, but rather
because of the benefits knowledge of English brings. (p. 5)

Thus, it is evident that they would be better served if they could recognize, at a fully

conscious level, the fact that the English language belongs to them just as it belongs

to native speakers, and that they are responsible for creating a culture of EIL in Asia

(Matsuda, 2003; Phan Le Ha, 2005; Tomlinson, 2005). Moreover, by recognizing

their ownership of the English language, they will be the main agents in the ways

English is used, is maintained, and changes, and who will shape the ideologies and

beliefs associated with EIL (Seidlhofer, 2003, p. 7).

Does the Instrumental vs. Integrative Motivation Still Make Sense?

Considering the complex, dynamic nature of orientations and motivation in

second language learning (Drneyi, 2003, 2005; Drnyei & Csizr, 2002; Drnyei &

Skehan, 2003; Gardner, Masgoret, Tennant, & Mihic 2004; Gardner, Tremblay, &

Masgoret, 1997; Noels, Pelletier, Clement, & Vallerand, 2000; Oxford & Shearin,

1994), the results of this study are never comprehensive nor conclusive, partly

because of the use of short-answer open-ended questions. Nonetheless, the findings

provide meaningful implications and raise critical questions regarding the significant

influence of historical changes, social contexts, and cultural beliefs on foreign

language motivational orientations among Asian students at the university level.

First, consistent with recent studies conducted in Asia (Chen, Warden, &

Chang, 2005; Lamb, 2004; Mori, 2002; Rahman, 2005), the results in this study

showed the weak presence of integrative motivational orientations and a strong

151
tendency for utilitarian and job-oriented orientations among Chinese university

students learning EIL. These findings were also compatible with the fact that the

participants perceived English as Key, as Bridge, and as Road to success.

According to Gardner (2001), the integrative motivation involves complete

identification with L2 community and speakers of the target language. However, this

concept gets blurred in EFL contexts due to the absence of salient L2 group in the

learners environment (Drnyei, 2003, p. 6). Even further, whether Gardners

integrative motivation exists in Asian EFL contexts in the early 21st century is

somewhat questionable. Lamb (2004) argued that [Being identified with the force of

globalization] English may not be associated with particular geographical or cultural

communities but with a spreading international culture (p. 5). Rahman (2005) also

stated that integrative motivation for Bangladeshi students might be integration into

English-educated society of Bangladesh and that way of life instead of becoming a

native speaker of English. In this regard, what Drnyei and Csizr (2003) claimed is

noteworthy:

World English is turning into an increasingly international language and it is

therefore rapidly losing its national cultural base while becoming associated
with a global culture. This undermines the traditional definition of
integrativeness as it is not clear any more who the L2 speakers or the
members of the L2 community are. (p. 453)

Second, the findings raise an important question concerning whether the L2

motivation constructs (e.g., the integrative-instrumental distinction) originally

developed in the West are relevant to Asian EFL contexts. As appeared in second

language motivation studies recently conducted in Bangladesh (Rahman, 2005),

152
Indonesia (Lamb, 2004), Japan (Mori, 2002), and Taiwan (Chen, Warden, & Chang,

2005), integrative and instrumental motivation were not really distinguishable in this

study. Rather, almost all statements were a reflection of the students social, historical

and cultural situations, and their strong desire to interact with the world as a world

citizen (Lamb, 2004, p.16). In fact, just as Mori (2002) mentioned in her research on

Japanese students motivation to read a foreign language, the statements in the current

study, intermingled with some other variables, were hard to be classified into either

integrative or instrumental orientation. In this regard, more attention should be paid to

how the social contexts affect language acquisition process (e.g., L2 motivation as a

situated construct) (Drnyei, 2001) to challenge any assumption that the components

of motivation are universal (Chen, Warden, & Chang, 2005, p. 624).

Third, it seems apparent that more comprehensive and well-designed

qualitative research such as ethnography, in-depth interviews or multiple case studies

is needed to reconceptualize and reinterpret the existing the motivation theories, as

Drnyei (2001) claimed, I consider it a significant step in motivation research that

traditional quantitative research methodologies have been increasingly complemented

by qualitative approaches (p. 49). Furthermore, looking at different age groups in

different sociocultural contexts over time would be greatly helpful in understanding

the internal dynamic of the intricate and multilevel construct of student motivation

(Drnyei, 2001, p. 49).

Does the Binary Concept of the Digital Divide Still Make Sense?

Since the term digital divide, referring to the gap between those who have

access to information technologies and those who do not (Dickard & Schneider,

153
2005), was first introduced in the late 1990s, it has been often seen as a useful

framework. However, as the information society brings about new conditions of

living in the 21st century, numerous scholars have pointed out the shortcomings of the

bipolar concept, calling for reconceptualizing the digital divide concept in order to

efficiently respond to emerging socioeconomic, cultural, political, linguistic,

institutional, and technological issues (Cisler 2000, De Haan, 2004; Dickard &

Schneider, 2005; Gorski, 2005; Jarboe, 2001; Reddy, 2004; Warschauer, 2002, 2003).

According to Warschauer (2003), the binary divide concept draws attention

away from more complex long-term processes that underlie social development and

inclusion (p. 303) and neglects the possibility of widening the great literacy gap for

the sake of technological determinism. Stating that meaningful access to ICT entails a

full consideration of content and language, literacy and education, community, and

institutional structures, he claimed, an overemphasis on the mere presence of

computers or Internet connections, without a corresponding emphasis on social

mobilization and transformation, can squander resources while leaving inequity

intact (p. 303). De Haan (2004) also criticized the binary concept of the digital

divide as it appears in existing research for failing to capture multidimensional nature

of ICT access and the causes and consequences of unequal access to ICT. Similarly,

Reddy (2004) discussed many types of digital divides to replace the simplistic

concept: (a) the connectivity divide related to access to the Internet, (b) the computer

access divide, which refers to accessibility and affordability, (c) the digital literacy

divide, including language divide and literacy divide, and (d) the content divide (i.e.,

divides in relation to access to information and knowledge, access to health care,

154
access to education and learning, access to jobs, access to entertainment, and access

to improved quality of life).

The data presented in the current study revealed a very complex picture in

relation to the digital divide. Despite the low rate of computer ownership, the

participants were still connected using public access computers on campus or in

Internet cafs. According to the binary concept of the digital divide that primarily

concerns access to computers and the Internet, they could be both haves (at school)

and have-nots (at home). Inadequate access and the unaffordable nature of new

technologies were some of the major concerns most frequently reported by the

participants in this study. The real problem, however, resided in their incompetence in

ICT skills, spending little time using ICTs in learning English because of the limited

access. Moreover, the fact that they had difficulty in obtaining adequate technical

assistance, instructional guidance, and appropriate educational resources and

materials might further deteriorate the students enthusiasm for adopting technology

in learning and their acquisition of digital literacies.

Thus, we should stay alert not only for connectivity or physical accessibility

to technology but also for the possible second-level divide (Dickard & Schneider,

2005; Jarboe, 2001). The second-level divide, caused by the limited physical access,

includes differences in mental accessibility (i.e., the degree to which people are

willing to adopt new technology), and digital skills and competence, and the use of

ICT (e.g., the amount of time spent using technologies and different kinds of

applications used) (De Haan, 2004).

Therefore, as Jarboe (2001) asserted, the issue is transformation, not

155
technology, because the ultimate goal is not to narrow some gap, but to ensure that

everyone has access to the expanded opportunities (p. 31). To this end, it is about

time to revisit the traditional concept of the digital divide and come up with a new

definition that reflects shifting the digital divide paradigm (Gorski, 2005, p. 5).

Summary of Redefining Concepts

Key ideas discussed in this section included: (a) the paradigm shift toward

EIL/WEs, (b) the need to reconceptualize the existing motivation framework, and (c)

the need to update the concept of the digital divide. The next section discusses the

importance of human factors in relation to the adoption and use and expansion of ICT

in education.

Rethinking Human Factor in ICT Integration into the Curriculum

The human factor is of vital importance when considering the adoption of

ICT. This section portrays the ways in which we can develop human and social

resources to achieve effective ICT integration into education.

The Need for Sustained Training

Undoubtedly, effective implementation of ICT in foreign language education

is a daunting task that should take various factors into consideration. In fact, the

adoption of new technologies in the field of education is surprisingly slow, and

profound endeavors to integrate ICT into the curriculum often turn out to be

disappointing. As the participants in the current study commented, there are many

barriers to making a difference through technology, such as lack of infrastructure and

resources, non-affordability of hardware and software, and unfamiliarity with

156
technology.

Of those barriers, one notorious reason behind the unsuccessful outcomes is

neglecting the role of human factor that influences the use of technology while paying

too much for equipment (Lam, 2000; Tiene, 2002; Warschauer, 2002, 2003). For

example, ICT implementation often begins by purchasing new technologies without

considering the fact that technology can play a role in realizing that system if the

physical and digital resources are complemented by the development of appropriate

human and social resources (Warschauer, 2003, p. 302). It also holds true for

researchers, who, more often than not, focus too much on external factors (e.g., lack

of equipment, unreliability of technology, lack of resources) than institutional,

cultural and human-related factors (e.g., teachers, students, and staff members) when

discussing barriers to the use of ICT in education.

In addition, the ICT training offered often fails to be sustainable support

because the activities focus on basic skill training and software applications without

thoroughly examining what staff and learners can do with and/or through technology,

how they perceive the use of technology and how they understand the effect of

technology on the teaching/learning process (Law & Plomp, 2003). It is partly due to

the small amount of funding allocated to training programs compared to purchasing

hardware and software, which makes it hard to provide staff and students with

sustained support, maintaining equipment, and ongoing evaluation (Warschauer &

Meskill, 2000). This unbalanced expenditure frequently observed impedes developing

plans, training, and support systems based on teachers and students needs, as one

determining factor for the failure of the use of new technologies in education.

157
 It is no doubt that the role of teachers is of paramount importance in the

process of integrating ICT into their class. Moreover, offering constant training to

teachers is very crucial in that they should adapt themselves to the changing society,

emerging technologies, and new learning and teaching environment. Lam (2000)

maintained that teachers reluctance to use technology results from their beliefs about

the benefits of the technology for their students learning, neither from their

resistance nor from their fear. So, she claimed, if technology is not used as planned, it

is not because of teachers fault, but because of the top-down approach from

technophilic administrators of schools and school districts in purchasing the brand

new technologies without having enough discussion with teachers, who are

misperceived as technophobes. To prevent this serious mismatch between what is

advocated and what is practiced (Zhong & Shen, 2002, p. 48), various forms of

training (e.g., training courses, seminars, workshops, and discussion groups)

opportunities should be provided so that teachers can develop their teaching

pedagogy, as well as their technical confidence and competence in ICT and their

knowledge about the way to incorporate ICT into their subject areas (UNESCO,

2002).

The students in this study also wanted ICT training and proper guidance to

efficiently use technology and resources in their learning. Obviously, what they

needed was not just one-time training focusing on basic skills and software

applications, but continued support to help them use technology as a tool in their

learning process. To help them engage in meaningful social practices, specifically to

communicate with people, to access information, and to publish information

158
(Warschauer, in press, n.p), they should be provided continual support in terms of

how to use new technologies in learning English in an interactive and supportive

learning environment.

Nurturing Supportive Communities of Practice

Lave and Wenger (1991) define a community of practice as a set of relations

among persons, activity, and world, over time and in relation with other tangential

and overlapping communities of practice (p. 98). In fact, in the post-modern era, the

participation in certain communities allows us to create multiple, dynamic, and

conflicting identities, which change in different circumstances over time (Warschauer

& De Florio-Hansen, 2003). Such participation also enables us to increase our ability

to experience daily life and the world, share resources with community members,

recognize participation as competence, and create personal histories (Wenger, 1998).

Echoing Wengers argument, Yang (2005) gives an example of the community of

practice of language learners that includes teachers, students, native speakers, classes,

as well as the values, perspectives, beliefs, the interaction among the members, and

resources. She continues, the interrelationships among these components and the

interactions between the members establish the community of practice of the target

language (p. 158). In short, any process of learning is an issue of engaging in the

practices of communities for individuals, of refining practice and ensuring new

generations of members for communities, and of sustaining the interconnected

communities of practice for organizations (Wenger, 1998).

As the concept of community of practice is now seen as a central theme of

teacher professional development research and practice (Schlager, Fusco, & Shank,

159
2002), it has been strongly urged that teachers using technology in their classrooms

need to create communities of practice so that they can share ideas, generate

dialogues on their experience, cultivate professional competencies, and disseminate

effective pedagogy (Law & Plomp, 2002). Tapped In (http://tappedin.org/tappedin/),

the online international community for teacher professional development, is the best

example in that it links numerous educators, teachers, administrators, and

professional development staff, and lets them learn, collaborate, share, and support

each other, participating in various online subgroups within the Tapped In system. In

Tapped In, they are able to (a) plan and conduct learning projects, (b) lead discussion

groups, (c) manage and attend online courses, (d) mentor other educators, and (e) try

out new ideas in a supportive environment (Bull, Bull, & Kajder, 2004).

Interestingly enough, Guo and Wang (2004) found that hundreds and

thousands of Internet cafs in small cities in China functioned like a community of

practice, where users learned from each other and asked the caf owner for help. Guo

and Wang (2004) quoted remarks by a participant from a small city, The population

of computer ownership is limited, but the number of Internet users here is unlimited

(p. 38) because those who dont have a computer at home can still be connected at

Internet cafs. According to Guo and Wang (2004)s study, 47% of Internet users in

small cities had access to the Internet at Internet cafs while only 24% of users in

metropolitan cities used it. In short, Internet cafs provided a space in which those

who didnt have computers at home learned to use the Internet and other applications

and taught each other. This type of community of practice might serve as an example

of how ICT skill and attitude development can occur.

160
Summary of Developing Human Resources

This section stressed the urgent need of promoting human and social

resources in order to achieve successful ICT adoption. What teachers should know

about teaching EIL through technology is provided in the next section.

Reflecting on Pedagogy:
Implications Leading Toward Full Participation in the Information Society

The significance of sound pedagogy cannot be overemphasized. In this section,

I detail the ways in which we can increase the quality of teaching EIL through

technology.

New Literacies in the 21st Century

The information age requires students to hone a different set of literacies in

order to take advantage of information overload, to efficiently use technology to

access, adapt and create knowledge (Warschauer, 2003, p. 301), and to benefit from

the networked society. Putting it differently, not acquiring new literacies means not

being able to participate in the information society, just as being disconnected means

being disconnected from the economy and democratic debate (Dickard & Schneider,

2005, n.p). Such literacies include the ability to (a) think critically and analytically;

(b) access information quickly; evaluate it appropriately, and use it effectively; and

(c) understand and appreciate international cultures, not to mention traditional basic

literacy (Leu & Kinzer, 2000).

For those who consider learning and teaching English as a lingua franca, the

concept of literacy also extends to encompass acquisition of the English language and

161
ICT skills as a vital stepping stone to being literate (Godwin-Jones, 2000, p. 11).

Both English and ICT are now considered as the means of communication and

knowledge production, which allows individuals to fully participate in society

(Warschauer, 2002). It is particularly because a command of English enables them to

make the most of the extensive resources available in English resources which

have developed as a consequence of globalization (McKay, 2003, p. 5), and ICT

skills maximize their opportunities in the labor market and increase their meaningful

social participation (De Haan, 2004). Consistent with these arguments, the results of

the current study demonstrated the participants strong enthusiasm for cultivating

their skills and knowledge for English and ICT despite a series of challenges they

have faced (e.g., lack of infrastructure, resources and guidance). In addition, the fact

that the participants reported English as Tool and Computer as Tool most frequently

suggests that they perceived both English and computers as a tool used, not an end in

itself (Warschauer, 2004).

The increasing importance of developing multiple literacies, in turn, demands

teachers to rethink their teaching practice and try new approaches to meet the

challenges posed by technological, economic and sociopolitical changes taking place

in this era of change (Kellner, 2004). Especially, English language teachers should be

able to teach new forms of discourse, new forms of authorship, new forms of

identity construction, and new ways to create and participate in learning

communities (Kern, 2006, p. 183). Developing English language literacy in the 21st

century involves acquiring new forms of reading, writing, and interpersonal

communication via online technologies (Warschauer, 2001). In other words, they

162
must be prepared to teach English with a goal of preparing students to effectively and

critically use technology in local contexts where learning occurs, and to expand their

cross-cultural awareness and understanding (Cheng & Ren, 2003; Kern, 2006;

Warschauer, 2004). The role of qualified English teachers therefore cannot be

exaggerated in fostering multiple literacies, as Hu (2002) claimed, Without qualified

teachers, no matter how good the curriculums, syllabuses, textbooks and tests are, the

development of ELT [English Language Teaching] will be handicapped and the

quality compromised(p. 45).

Technology-Based Language Pedagogy

In the technological revolution and the information age, using technology in

teaching English becomes a fact of life (Chapelle, 2001, p. 1) and becomes a part

of the broader ecology of life at the turn of the century (Warschauer & Meskill, 2000,

p. 10). It is widely assumed that technology has enormous potential to improve

learners achievement by expanding students learning experience, increasing

motivation, facilitating collaboration, fostering learner autonomy, and promoting

global understanding, not to mention developing language skills if it is used

effectively in the context where learning takes place (Jurich, 2001; Lee, 2000).

However, it seems that the integration of ICT into foreign language

classrooms anywhere in the world is not as pervasive as in other sectors for various

reasons, and has not caused any profound pedagogical innovations in technology-

enhanced foreign language classrooms yet. Rather, as Zhong and Shen (2002)

claimed, a technologized traditional classroom (p. 46) that exhibits some changes

only in the physical appearance of the classroom, with actual teaching practices

163
unchanged, has come into existence.

The success of use of ICT in foreign language classrooms is truly a matter of

whether and how technology is effectively used, not of technology itself (Egbert,

Paulus, & Nakamichi, 2002; Kern 2006, Thao, 2003; Zhao, 2003; Zhong & Shen,

2002). In this regard, Thao (2003) stated,

The success or failure of language learning/teaching using multimedia tools

can hardly be decidedly by the media themselves, but by other determinants
like teachers creativity and adaptability, students language ability, the
curriculum and the teaching goals as well. (p. 7)

Kern (2006) also echoed,

The central importance of pedagogy and the teacher: Success largely depends

on teachers efforts in coordinating learners activities, structuring language

and content learning and helping learners to reflect critically on language,

culture, and context. (p. 203)

It is thus assumed that teachers can make the most of technology in teaching foreign

languages only when they use creativity in the classroom, guided by sound pedagogy.

In other words, without an emergent pedagogy that reflects the impact of rapid

changes on the learning process in the information society, any deliberate goals to

infuse ICT into the curriculum cannot be attained (Law & Plomp, 2003).

As an effective approach to teach foreign languages by using technology,

adoption of task-based language teaching has been advocated by numerous

researchers (Chapelle, 1999; Doughty & Long, 2003; Ellis, 2003, 2006; Jarvis, 2005;

164
Lee, 2000; Leaver & Willis, 2004; Norris, 2005; Nunan, 2005; Oxford, in press;

Zhong & Shen, 2002). They claim that task-based language teaching can provide

learners with optimal language learning space to foster communication, interaction,

negotiation, and collaboration by offering meaningful activities (Lee, 2004). It is also

compatible with learner-centered approach, even in a large class, that facilitates more

interaction and boost learner autonomy, by devising activities suited to class size (e.g.,

using small group work) and students proficiency levels (Ellis, 2003; Zhong & Shen,

2002). Chapelle (2005) particularly pointed out that the range of tasks that teachers

can develop has been enormously expanded by the emergence of technology,

breaking boundaries of registers in written and spoken language, time and space that

language learning occurs. At the same time, teaching foreign languages through

technology would allow teachers to focus on authentic activities, not on software,

keeping them away from using technology for technologys sake (Szendeffy, 2005).

Furthermore, it is understood that task-based, technology-enhanced approaches are

the most effective way to accommodate the EIL perspective (Jarvis, 2005; Sifakis,

2004). For example, teachers can experiment various long-distance collaboration

tasks such as intercultural learning projects that invite learners to communicate with

other learners from different countries via email or teleconferencing (Kern, Ware, &

Warschauer, 2004; Sifakis, 2004). In short, task-based language teaching can be very

promising, ensuring that teachers make a connection among technology, culture and

ideology (Chapelle, 2003, p. 9) while enhancing learners language skills.

165
EIL Pedagogy

As the English language becomes a lingua franca for cross-cultural

communication, there has been consensus that a new pedagogy based on a pluralistic

view of World Englishes is needed for the increasing number of non-native speakers

of English in periphery regions, whose motivational orientations and expectations are

quite different from other foreign language learners (Jenkins, 2002, 2006; Llurda,

2004; Matsuda, 2003; McKay, 2003; Sifakis, 2004). In other word, as the results of

this study revealed, they are eager to acquire English to pave their own road for a

better future (English as Road), communicate with the world (English as Connector),

and obtain up-to-date information (English as Tool), not assimilating into North

American or British culture.

The crucial need for new pedagogy also comes from a growing awareness that

it will be those who speak English as a second or foreign language who will

determine its world future (Graddol, 1997, p. 5). In relation to this, McKay (2003)

asserted, Given this shift in the nature of English, it is time to recognize the

multilingual context of English use and to put aside a native speaker model of

research and pedagogy (p. 19) because the majority of English users are now non-

native speakers of English everywhere in the world.

As for effective pedagogy for EIL, it should go without saying that raising

learners ownership of English and awareness of English varieties should be the first

step (Matsuda, 2003; McKay, 2003; Nakamura, 2002; Petzold, 2002; Sifakis &

Sougari, 2003, Widdowson, 1994). This would be best achieved when teachers

become vigilant in watching over the changing role of English for international

166
communication within political, sociocultural, economic, and linguistic contexts in

which they are located, taking full responsibility for global thinking, local teaching

(McKay, 2003, p. 17, quoting Kramsch & Sullivan, 1996). Teachers should be able to

help learners cultivate intercultural understanding based on a variety of linguistic

features, taking ownership of English (Sifakis, 2004). In this regard, Sifakis and

Sougari (2003) convincingly argued, The ultimate aim of ESOL practitioners should

be not only to make their learners competent users of English, but also to culturally

authenticate the foreign language (p. 67).

Another important point regarding EIL is that many learners of English these

days have more opportunities to interact with non-native speakers of English like

themselves rather than with native speakers. For this reason, achieving native-like

competence as a goal of teaching and learning English is debatable. Instead,

considerable attention should be paid to the ways in which we could enhance

learners international intelligibility, and intercultural abilities while securing regional

appropriateness and local identity and culture (Jenkins, 2000, 2002; McKay, 2003;

Sifakis, 2004). For example, Sifakis and Sougari (2003) strongly suggested culturally

informed approaches for upholding English language as an instrument for

communication among people in the entire world, while at the same time shielding

non-native speakers from the negative effects on the norm-based rationale (p. 64). It

can be achieved by (a) encouraging learners to communicate with other students in

different countries, (b) encouraging them to participate in the various international

exchange programs and non-profit organizations, (c) stimulating classroom

discussions on cultural and political issues in the world, and (d) sensitizing them to

167
the status of EIL and their role as global communicators (Sifakis, 2004; Sifakis &

Sougari, 2003). Similarly, Nakamura (2002) urged teachers to integrate global human

issues into EIL speech communication class as an effort to build up learners global

literacy, including inter/cross-cultural competence with transcultural and

transnational perspectives (p. 64). To make this happen, teachers should not force

learners to take up native speakers identity and/or culture keeping in mind the fact

that EIL learners and their real-life situations are always the best instructional

resources (Sifakis, 2004). Furthermore, it is also necessary to revisit the notion of

traditional communicative competence for international communication in the 21st

century (Alptekin, 2002, Jenkins, 2000) to define EIL competence based on what we

have achieved. In this regard, Nunns (2005) recent call for embracing multiple

competences that includes not only intelligibility but also linguistic competence sets

spurs to this newly-fledged area.

Summary of Pedagogical Implications

This section suggested the ways in which we can develop an appropriate

pedagogy for EIL through technology: (a) employing task-based language teaching,

(b) increasing learners ownership of English, and (c) encouraging intercultural

collaboration. Now Id like to make my last remarks.

Concluding Remarks

There still remain many controversial issues and problems with reference to

teaching EIL (e.g., issues surrounding standards and linguistic competence and

norms) and integrating ICT into English language teaching, which requires

168
substantial collaboration between researchers and educators in order to benefit

learners. It is truly a time of challenge but at the same time it is an era of opportunity

for all of us to revitalize foreign language education worldwide through technology

since language classrooms will be one important place where these new educational

opportunities are found, or missed (Warschauer, 2001, p. 58). We truly live in

interesting times for making a meaningful difference (Jarvis, 2005). As Hawkins

(2002) noted,

It is time to collectively change our approach to the learning process, and

particularly, take advantage of the power of technology to improve learning
outcomes, enhance economic opportunities, foster greater creativity, and
realize the dreams of disadvantaged youth in developing countries. (p. 43)

169
 Appendix A:
Information and Communication Technology Use and Skills
(ICTUS) for Learning English

This survey focuses on your experiences with and opinions about information
technology and its use in learning English. The goal of the study is to better
understand student experiences with information technology in learning English.

The original version of this questionnaire, Student Information Technology Use and
Skills in Higher Education: 2005 Survey Questionnaire, was developed by
EDUCAUSE Center for Advanced Research (ECAR). The current questionnaire is a
modification of the ECAR 2005 survey to make it more relevant to the language
learning experience and to higher education in China and Korea.

SECTION I. Background Information

1.1 Gender (check one) : Female ____ Male ____ 1.2 Age: ________
1.3 Major: _______________________________
1.4 Class status (check one): Freshman ___ Sophomore ___ Junior ____ Senior ___
1.5 Nationality: ____________ City you live in _________________
1.6 Reason(s) you learn English
__________________________________________________
1.7 How would you rate your level of English?

Basic Intermediate Advanced

Listening
Speaking
Reading
Writing
Grammar
Vocabulary

170
 1.9_1.11 Please describe the following words using a metaphor. (e.g., The Internet is
a door to the World)

1.9 Computers are __________________________________________

1.10 The Internet is ____________________________________________
1. 11 English is _______________________________________________
1. 12 Learning English is __________________________________________

SECTION II. Your General Use of Technology

2.1_2.8 Which of the following electronic devices do you own? Check all that apply.

2.1 Desktop computer 2.2 Laptop computer

2.3 Personal digital assistant 2.4 Smart phone (combination cell phone and PDA
(PDA), device)
2.5 Cell phone 2.6 Electronic music device, (e.g., mp3 player,
iPod, etc)
2.7 Digital camera 2.8 Camcorder

2.9 Excluding your use of cell phones, how many hours each week do you
normally spend using an electronic device (computer, Palm device, etc.) for
pleasure?

Do not use _____ Less than an hour _____ 12 hours _____

35 hours _____ 6-10 hours _____ 11-15 hours ______

16-20 hours _____ More than 20 hours ______

2.10_2.19 How many hours each week do you normally spend on each of the
following activities using an electronic device (computer, Palm device, etc.)? Choose
1 Do not use,
one of these: 2 Less than an hour,
3 12 hours,
4 35 hours,
5 610
6 1115 hours,
hours, 7 1620 hours,
8 More than 20 hours

171
 2.10 Classroom activities and studying using an electronic device
2.11 Using a library resource to complete a course assignment
(e.g., a library resource on your official school library Web sit
e)
2.12 Surfing the Internet for information to support your coursewor
k
2.13 Writing documents for your coursework
2.14 Creating, reading, sending e-mail
2.15 Creating, reading, sending instant messages
2.16 Writing documents for pleasure (e.g., blogging)
2.17 Playing computer games
2.18 Downloading or listening to music or videos/DVDs
2.19 Surfing the Internet for pleasure
2.20 Online shopping

2.21_2.26 How many hours each week do you normally spend on each of the
following activities using an electronic device (computer, Palm device, etc.)? Choose
1 Do not use,
one of these: 2 Less than an hour,
3 12 hours,
4 35 hours,
5 610
6 1115 hours,
hours, 7 1620 hours,
8 More than 20 hours

2.21 Creating spreadsheets or charts (Excel, etc.)

2.22 Creating presentations (PowerPoint, etc.)
2.23 Creating graphics (Photoshop, Flash, etc.)
2.24 Creating and editing video/audio (Premiere, Windows Movie
Maker, etc.)
2.25 Creating Web pages (Dreamweaver, FrontPage, etc.)
2.26 Completing a learning activity or accessing information for a c
ourse using course websites

2.27_2.37 What is your skill level using the following computer technologies and
1 Do not use,
applications? Choose one of these: 2 Very unskilled=have not used the
3 Unskilled=have used the software but not regularly,
software, 4 Skilled=full use of
5 Very skilled=ability to use advanced
basic features but not advanced features,
features, link the software with other software, troubleshoot problems, and

172
upgrade/patch the software)

2.27 Word processing (Word, etc.)

2.28 Spreadsheets (Excel, etc.)
2.29 Presentation software (PowerPoint, etc.)
2.30 Graphics (Photoshop, Flash, etc.)
2.31 Creating and editing video/audio (Premiere, Widows Movie Ma
kers etc)
2.32 Creating Web pages (Dreamweaver, FrontPage, etc.)
2.33 Creating and maintaining blogs
2.34 Online library resources
2.35 Computer operating systems (Windows, OSX, etc.)
2.36 Computer maintenance
2.37 Securing your electronic device (firewalls, antivirus software, e
tc)

2.38 How would you rate your information technology skills compared to other
students skills on your campus?

Much less skilled ______Less skilled _______ About the same skill level ______
More skilled ______ Much more skilled _______

2.39_2.43 Why did you learn the following computer technologies and
1 Do not use,
applications? Choose all that apply: 2 To improve my course
3 Class or major requirement,
performance, 4 Campus requirement,
5 Personal
6 Employment,
interest 7 Other (please specify)

2.39 Spreadsheets (Excel, etc.)

2.40 Presentation software (PowerPoint, etc.)
2.41 Graphics (Photoshop, Flash, etc.)
2.42 Creating and editing video/audio (Premiere, Windows Movie
Makers, etc)
2.43 Creating Web pages (Dreamweaver, FrontPage, etc)

173
2.44 What is your most frequently used method for access to the Internet?

Commercial dial-up modem service

School-operated dial-up modem service
Commercial broadband service (e.g., DSL modem, cable modem, et
c.)
School-operated wired broadband service
Commercial wireless network

2.45_2.51 Which of the following concern you regarding information technology?

1 Not a concern,
Choose one of these: 2 Small concern,
3 Significant concern,
4
Major concern

2.45 Inadequate access to printing

2.46 The age of my computer hardware and software
2.47 Slow or inadequate network access
2.48 My technical skill level in troubleshooting my computer
2.49 Computer viruses, worms, or Trojan horses
2.50 Spam
2.51 Inadequate technical assistance and help available to me on my
campus

SECTION III: Your Use of Technology in Learning English

3.1 Excluding your use of cell phones, how many hours each week do you
normally spend using an electronic device (computer, Palm device, etc.) for
studying English?

Do not use _____ Less than an hour _____ 12 hours _____

35 hours _____ 6-10 hours _____ 11-15 hours ______

16-20 hours _____ More than 20 hours ______

174
3.2 Which of the following best describes your preference with regard to the use of
technology in your English courses?

I prefer taking courses that use no information technology.

I prefer taking courses that use limited technology features
(e.g., e-mail to instructors and limited use of PowerPoint in class).
I prefer taking courses that use a moderate level of technology
(e.g., e-mail, several PowerPoint presentations, some online activities or content).
I prefer taking courses that use technology extensively
(e.g., class lecture notes online, computer simulations, PowerPoint presentations,
streaming video or audio, etc.).
I prefer taking courses that use technology exclusively
(i.e., are entirely online with no required face-to-face interactions).

3.3_3.7 To what extent does each of the following describe your experiences in your
1 Strongly Disagree,
English courses? Choose one of these: 2 Disagree,
3 Neutral,
4 Agree,
5 Strongly Agree

3.3 I am more engaged in courses that require me to use technology.

3.4 Overall, my instructors use information technology well in my

courses.
3.5 The instructors use of technology in my courses has increased my
interest in the subject matter.
3.6 I primarily use information technology in courses to improve the
presentation of my work.
3.7 My school needs to give me more training on the information
technology that I am required to use in my courses.

175
3.8_3.12 To what extent has the use of information technology in English courses
1 Strongly Disagree,
helped you? Choose one of these: 2 Disagree,
3 Neutral,
4
5 Strongly Agree
Agree,

3.8 The use of information technology in courses has helped me better un

derstand complex or abstract concepts.
3.9 The use of information technology in courses has helped me better co
mmunicate with my instructors.
3.10 The use of information technology in courses has helped me better c
ommunicate and collaborate with my classmates.
3.11 The use of information technology in courses has resulted in prompt
feedback from my instructors.
3.12 Courses that use information technology allow me to take greater con
trol of my course activities (e.g., planning, apportioning time, noti
ng success and failure).

3.13 Have you taken an English class that used course websites? <If no, go to
3.26. If yes, go to 3.14>
Yes ______ No ________

3.14 If yes, how would you describe your own overall experience using a course
website?
Very negative ___ Negative ___ Neutral ____ Positive ____ Very positive ___

176
3.15_3.23 How valuable did you find the following course website features? Choose
1 Did not use,
one of these: 2 Not valuable,
3 Valuable,
4 Very valuable

3.15 Syllabus available on-line

3.16 Online readings and links to other text-based course materials
3.17 Online discussion board (postings comments, questions, and
responses)
3.18 Access to sample exams and quizzes for learning purposes
3.19 Taking exams and quizzes online for grading purposes
3.20 Turning in assignments online
3.21 Getting assignments back from with comments and grades
3.22 Sharing materials among students
3.23 Keeping track of grades on assignments and tests

3.24 Which of the following benefits from using information technology in your
English courses was the most valuable to you?

No benefits ______ Improved my learning ______ Convenience

_____
Helped me manage my course activities (e.g., planning, monitoring my
progress) ______
Helped me communicate with my classmates and instructors _______
Other _________________________________________________________

3.25 The use of information technology in my English courses improves my language

skills.

Strongly disagree ____ Disagree ____ Neutral _____

Agree ____ Strongly agree ____

177
3.26 The use of information technology has improved my ability in

Strongly disagre Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agr

e ee
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Listening
Grammar
Vocabulary

3. 27 Three websites you frequently visit for learning English

_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

3.28 Two or three software programs you use for learning English

____________________________________________________________________

3.29 Which of the following would you like your instructors to use in English
classes? Check all that apply.

Course web site PowerPoint presentations

Digital images, multimedia compo Course materials available o
nents n-line
On-line discussion board for the cl Technology-mediated project
ass s
Computer simulations and games Web-casting
Other (Please specify):

3.30 Most valuable benefits from using technology in learning English

________________________________________________________________
_
________________________________________________________________
_

178
3.31 Barriers to using technology in learning English
________________________________________________________________
_
________________________________________________________________
_

Thank you very much for your time and participation.

179
 Appendix B
A Map of China

Source from http://www.travelchinaguide.com/map/

180

Project Title
Why is this research being
done?
What will I be asked to do?
What about confidentiality?
What are the risks of this
research?
What are the benefits of this
research?
Do I have to be in this
research?
Can I stop participating at
any time?
What if I have questions?
Statement of Age of Subject
and Consent
Signature and Date
Appendix C: Consent Form
Information and Communication Technology Use among Chinese Learners of English as an
International Language
This is a research project being conducted by Dr. Rebecca Oxford and Sei-Hwa Jung at the
University of Maryland, College Park. We are inviting you to participate in this research because
you are at least 18 years of age, currently enrolled in a university in China, and taking English
courses now. The purpose of this research is to explore university students ICT use in learning
English.
The procedures involve taking the questionnaire Information and Communication Technology
Use and Skills in learning English, which takes 15-20 minutes. The questionnaire consists of three
sections: (a) background information, (b) your general use of technology, and (c) your use of
technology in learning English.
We will do our best to keep your personal information confidential. To help protect your
confidentiality, your name will not be included on the survey, and a code will be placed on the
surveys. If we write a report or article about this research project, your identity will be protected
to the maximum extent possible.
You will have to spend approximately 15 20 minutes taking the questionnaire.
As a result of taking the questionnaire, you will understand more about your ICT use and skills in
language learning. You can obtain a summary of the whole-group results if you are interested.
Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. You may choose not to take part at all.
If you decide to participate in this research, you may stop participating at any time. If you decide
not to participate in this study or if you stop participating at any time, you will not be penalized or
lose any benefits to which you otherwise qualify.
Dr. Rebecca Oxford Sei-Hwa Jung
Professor, Second Language Education and Ph.D. Candidate, Second Language Education
Culture Program, College of Education, and Culture Program, College of Education ,
2311 Benjamin Building, University of University of Maryland , College Park, MD
Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 20742
roxford@umd.edu (301)405-8157 seihwajung@hotmail.com
If you have questions about your rights as a research subject or wish to report a research-related
injury, please contact: Institutional Review Board Office, University of Maryland, College Park,
Maryland, 20742; (e-mail) irb@deans.umd.edu; (telephone) 301-405-0678
This research has been reviewed according to the University of Maryland, College Park IRB
procedures for research involving human subjects.
Your signature indicates that: you are at least 18 years of age; the research has been explained to
you; your questions have been answered; and you freely and voluntarily choose to participate in
this research project.
Signature:
181
 Bibliography

Adamson, B. (2002). Barbarian as a foreign language: English in Chinas Schools.

World Englishes, 21(2), 231-243.

Adamson, B. (2004). Chinas English: A History of English in Chinese Education.

Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Adamson, B. (2005). Developing information technology for English in Chinese

secondary schools. In Chris Davison (Ed.). Information Technology and
Innovation in Language Education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press

Adamson, B., & Morris, P. (1997). The English Curriculum in the People's Republic
of China. Comparative Education Review, 41(1), 3-26.

Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT

Journal, 56(1), 57-64.

Anker, W. P. (2002). The Challenge and opportunity of technology: An interview

with Mark Warschauer, English Teaching Forum, 40(4), 1-8.

Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57,

774-783.

Becker, G. (2000). Creating comparability coefficient: The case of Cronbach alpha

and Cohen kappa. Psychological Reports, 87, 1171-1182

Beijing launches BETS exams (2006, March 29). Peoples Daily Online. Retrieved
March 14, 2006, from
http://english.people.com.cn/200603/29/eng20060329_254254.html

Bureau of Commerce of Municipal Government (2006). Xian Online Investment

Fair. Retrieved July 29, 2006, from http://www.xianonlineinvest.org

182
Block, D., & Cameron, D. (Eds.).(2002). Globalization and language teaching.
London and New York: Routledge.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An

introduction to theories and methods. (4th Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Bolton, K., & Tong, Q. S. (2002). Introduction: interdisciplinary perspectives on

English in China. World Englishes, 21(2), p. 177-180.

Boyle, J. (2000). Education for teachers of English in China. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 26(2), p. 147-155.

Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Burns, A. (2003). Opportunities or threats? The case of English as a global language

Publishing Research Quarterly, 18(4), 18-25.

Burns, A., & Coffin, C. (Eds.). (2001). Analyzing English in a global Context: A
reader. London and New York: Routledge.

Bull, G., Bull, G.., & Kajder, S. (2004). Tapped In: The new incarnation of this
resource is now available. Learning & Leading with Technology, 31, 34-37.

Cameron, D. (2002). Globalization and the teaching of communication skills. In D.

Block and D. Cameron. (Eds.). Globalization and language teaching. (pp. 67-
82). London and New York: Routledge.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching.

Oxford: OUP.

Caruso, J. B., Kvavik, R. B., & Morgan, G. (2004, July ). ECAR study of students and
information technology, 2004: Convenience, Connection and Control. Paper

183
 presented at the Third Annual ECAR/HP Summer Symposium for Higher
Education IT Executives. Sedona, AZ.

Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Castells, M. (2004). Informationalism, Networks, and the Network Society: a

Theoretical Blueprinting, The network society: a Cross-Cultural Perspective.
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Chapelle, C. A.(1999). Theory and research: Investigating of authentic language

learning tasks. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.). CALL environments:
Resources, practice and critical issues (pp.101-115). VA: TESOL Inc.

Chapelle C. A.(2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition:

foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Chapelle, C.A. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on

applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Chapelle, C. A. (2005). Computer assisted language learning. In E. Hinkle (Ed.)

Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching, (pp. 743-756).
Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Chism, R. L. (2003). Electronic message boards: Conversations and communication

beyond the classroom. In L. Lomicka & J. Cooke-Plagwitz (Eds.). Teaching
with Technology (pp. 149-154). Boston: Thomson Heinle.

Chen, J. E., Warden, C. A., & Chang, H-T. (2005). Motivators that do not motivate:
The case of Chinese EFL learners and the influence of culture on motivation.
TESOL Quarterly, 39(4), 609-633.

184
Cheng, L., & Ren, S. (2003). Pre-service and in-service teacher education of
secondary English language teachers in China. TEFL Web Journal, 2(1), 1-14.

China Internet Network Information Center (2006). The 17th Statistical Survey Report
on the Internet Development in China. Retrieved March, 16, 2006, from
http://www.cnnic.net.cn/en/index/0O/02/index.htm

Cisler, S. (2000). Subtract the digital divide. San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved
October 17, 2005, from http://www.athenaalliance.org/rpapers/cisler.html

Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (2000). How people
learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy of Sciences.

Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (1997). Putting Multiliteracies to the Test. Retrieved

October 17, 2005, from http://www.alea.edu.au/multilit.htm

Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the
design of social futures. London and New York: Routledge.

Cresswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cresswell, J. W., Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced
mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.),
Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-239).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

185
Crystal, D. (2004). The language revolution. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Daley, E. (2003). Expanding the concept of literacy. EDUCAUSE Review, 38(2), 33-
40.

Davies, G. (2002). ICT and modern foreign languages: Learning opportunities and
training needs. International Journal of English Studies. 2(1), 1-18.

Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. EDUCAUSE Quarterly,

28(1), 7-12.

De Haan, J. (2004). A multifaceted dynamic model of the digital divide. IT & Society,
1(7), 66-88.

Dickard, N., & Schneider, D., (2005). The digital divide: Where we are today.
Edutopedia. Retrieved June, 12, 2006, from http://www.glef.org

Drnyei, Z. (2001) New themes and approaches in second language motivation

research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43-59.

Drnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning:

Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 53(1), 3-
32.

Drnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: construction,

administration, and processing. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum

Drnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in

second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: LEA

Dornyei, Z., & Csizer, K. (2002). Some dynamics of language attitudes and
motivation: Results of a longitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics,
23(4), 421-462.

186
Drnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning.
In C. J. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.). The handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 589-630). Oxford: Blackwell.

Doughty, C., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for

distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 50-
80.

Economist (1996, December 21). Language and electronics: The coming global
tongue. The Economist, 45-48. Retrieved September 11, 2005, from
http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US8/REF/globtong.html

Egbert, J. L. (2005). Conducting research on CALL. In J. Egbert and G. M. Petrie

(Eds.) CALL research perspectives (pp. 3-8). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Earlbaum.

Egbert, J., Paulus, T. M., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction
on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher
education. Language Learning and Technology, 6(3), 108-126.

Ellis, R. (2001). The metaphorical constructions of second language learners. In M.

Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in
research (pp. 65-85). London: Longman.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Emrich, A. (2004). The gamer generation: And why baby boomers shouldnt worry so
much about them. Retrieved October 17, 2005, from
http://www.alanemrich.com/SGI/Week_10/SGI%2010%20GAMER%20GEN
ERATION.PDF

187
English can enhance development of successful, progressive economy. (2001, July
29). New Straits Times. p. 6.

Fang, X., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and curricular reform in China: A
case study. TESOL Quarterly 38(2), 301-323.

Ferguson, C. (1959) Diglossia. Word, 15, 325-340.

Foreman, J. (2003). Next-generation: Educational technology versus the lecture.

EDUCAUSE Review, 38(4), 12-22.

Frand, J. L. (2003). The information age mindset. EDUCAUSE Review, 35(5), 15-24.

Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Hadley,
MA: Bergin and Garvey.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of
attitudes and motivation. London: Arnold.

Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z.

Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.). Motivation and second language learning
(pp.1-20). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

Gardner, R.C., Masgoret, A.M., Tennant, J., & Mihic, L. (2004). Integrative
motivation: Changes during a year-long intermediate-level language course.
Language Learning, 54(1), 1-34.

Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P.F., & Masgoret, A.M. (1997). Towards a full model of
second language learning: An empirical investigation. Modern Language
Journal, 81, 344-362

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy.
New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.

188
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and
reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Giddens, A. (2000). Runaway world: How globalization in reshaping our lives. New
York: Routledge.

Greenfield (2003). Collaborative E-mail exchange for teaching secondary ESL: A

case study in Hong Kong. Language Learning & Technology, 7(1). 46-70.

Godwin-Jones, B. (2000). Literacies and technology tools/trends. Language Learning

& Teaching, 4(2), 11-18.

Godwin-Jones, B. (2005). Skype and podcasting: Disruptive technologies for

language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 9-12.

Gorski, P. (2005). Education equity and the digital divide. AACE Journal, 13(1), 3-45.

Goulding, C. (1999). Grounded theory: Some reflections on paradigm, procedures

and misconceptions. Working paper series, WP006/99, Wolverhampton:
University of Wolverhampton. Retrieved June 25, 2006 from
http://www.wlv.ac.uk/PDF/uwbs_WP006-99%20Goulding.pdf

Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? London: The British Council.

Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (Eds.).(1997). Advances in mixed-method

evaluations: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms
(New Directions for Evaluations, No. 74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Guo, L., & Wang, N. (2004). Internet adoption in Chinas smaller cities. IT & Society,
1(6), 36-43.

Harrington, J. (2001).The Digital Divide: Lessons from the People's Republic of

China. Paper Presented at the Midwest International Studies Association
Meeting, St. Louis, MO, November 2nd, 2001.

189
Hawkins, R. J. (2002). The lessons for ICT and education in the developing world.

Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W. & Jurs, S. G. (1998). Applied Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences. (4th Ed.)Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company.

Hertel, T. J. (2003). Using an E-mail exchange to promote cultural learning. Foreign

Language Annals, 36(3), 386-396.

Hu, G.. (2002). Recent important development in secondary English-language

teaching in the Peoples Republic of China. Language, Culture, and
Curriculum, 15(1), 30-49.

Hu, G.. (2003). English language teaching in China: Regional differences and
contributing factors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
24(4), 290-318.

Hu, G.. (2005). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for
an ecological approach to ELT, TESOL Quarterly, 39(4), 635-660.

Hui, D. (2001). The globalization of the English language: Reflections on the

teaching of English in China. International Education Journal, 2(4), 126-133.

Hui, P. K. (2005, September). Implications of ubiquitous computing for education.

Paper presented at the International Workshop on Workforce Development for
Knowledge Economy. Seoul, Korea.

Jarboe, K. P. (2001). Inclusion in the information age: Reframing the debate. Athena |
Alliance: Washington, D.C. Retrieved March 14, 2006, from

http://www.athenaalliance.org/apapers/inclusionreport.html

Jarvis, H. (2005). Technology and change in English Language Teaching. Asia TEFL
Journal, 7(4), 213-227.

190
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language: New
models, new norms, new goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press:

Jenkins, J. (2002) A socially based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for

English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 83-103.

Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a

Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157-181.

Jin, L. & Cortazzi, M. (1998) The Culture the Learner Brings: a Bridge or a Barrier?,
in M. Byram & M. Fleming (eds.) Language Learning in Intercultural
Perspective, approaches through drama and ethnography ( pp. 98-118).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (2004). English language teaching in China: A bridge to the
future. In H. W. Kam & R. T. Wong, (2nd Eds.). English Language Teaching
in East Asia Today: Changing Policies and Practices. Singapore: Marshall
Cavendish International.

Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods
research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.). Handbook of mixed methods
in social and behavioral research (pp. 167-187). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational Research: Quantitative,

Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research

paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Johnson, T. P., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Social Desirability in Cross-Cultural

Research. In J. Harkness, F. J. R. Van de Vijver, & P. P. Mohler (eds.), Cross-
Cultural Survey Methods (pp. 295-304). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

191
Jordan, M. K., Heredia, A. H., & Aguilera, G., M. (2001). Cross-cultural E-mail:
Providing cultural input for the advanced foreign language student. Foreign
Language Annals, 34(4), 341-346.

Jones, S. (2002). The internet goes to college: How students are living in the future
with todays technology. Washington, D.C: Pew Internet & American Life
Project.

Jung, S. (2006). Information and Communication Technology Use and Skills (ICTUS)
for learning English.

Jurich, S. (2001). ICT and the teaching of foreign languages. Retrieved June 12, 2006,
from
http://www.techknowlogia.org/TKL_active_pages2/CurrentArticles/main.asp?IssueN
umber=14&FileType=HTML&ArticleID=335

Kachru, B., & Nelson, C.L. (2001). World Englishes. In A. Burns & C. Coffin (Eds.).
Analyzing English in a global context (pp.9-25). New York: Routledge.

Kaminski, K., Seel, P., & Cullen, K. (2003). Technology literate students? Results
from a survey. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 26 (3), 34-39.

Kasper, L. F. (2000). New technologies, new literacies: Focus discipline research and
ESL learning communities. Language Learning & Teaching, 4(2), 105-128.

Katsuno, M. (2005). Status and Overview of Official ICT Indicators for China. Paris,
France: OECD Publications. Retrieved March 14, 2006, from
http://www.oecd.org/sti/working-papers

Katz, S. L. (2001). Videoconferencing with the French-speaking world: A users

guide. Foreign Language Annals, 34(2), 152-157.

Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages.

TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183-210.

192
Kellner, D. (2000). New technologies/new literacies: Reconstructing education for the
new millennium. Teaching Education, 11(3), 245-265.

Kellner, D. (2004). Technological transformation, multiple literacies, and the re-

visioning of education. E-Learning, 1(1), 9-37.

Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages.

TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183-211.

Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in
online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243-
260.

Kramsch, C. (1998). The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In M. Byram & M.

Fleming (Eds.). Language learning in intercultural perspective: approaches
through drama and ethnography. (pp. 16-31). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. L. (2002). Foreign language learning as global

communicative practice. In D. Block and D. Cameron. (Eds.). Globalization
and language teaching. (pp. 83-100). London and New York: Routledge.

Kramsch, C., ANess, F., & Lam, W. (2000). Authenticity and authorship in the
computer-mediated acquisition of L2 literacy. Language Learning &
Technology, 4(2), 78-104.

Kubota, R. (2002). The impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan. In D.

Block and D. Cameron. (Eds.). Globalization and language teaching. (pp. 13-
28). London and New York: Routledge.

Kvakik, R. (2005). Convenience, communications, and control: How students use

technology. In D.G. Oblinger & J.L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net
Generation. (pp. 7.1-7.20). Washington, DC:Educause.

193
Kvaivk, R. B., & Caruso, J. B. (2005). ECAR study of students and information
technology, 2005: Convenience, connection, control, and learning. Boulder,
CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved October 17, 2005,
from www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0506/rs/ERS0506w.pdf

Lam, A. (2002) English in education in China: Policy changes and learners

experiences. World Englishes, 21(2), 245-256.

Lam, A., & Chow, K. (2004). English language education in China: An Update. In K-
K. Tam & T. Weiss. (Eds.). English and globalization: Perspectives from
Hong Kong and China. (pp. 233-252). Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.

Lam, Y. (2000). Technophilia vs. Technophobia: A preliminary look at why second

language teachers do or do not use technology in their classrooms. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(3), 389-420.

Lam, W. S. E., & Kramsch, C. (2003). The ecology of an SLA community in a

computer-mediated environment. In J. Leather, & J. van Dam (Eds.), Ecology of
Language Acquisition (pp. 141-158). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lamb, M. (2004) Integrative motivation in a globalizing world. System, 32, 2-19.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (Eds.). (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Law, N., & Plomp, T. (2003). Curriculum and Staff Development for ICT in
education. In T. Plomp, R., Anderson, N. Law & A. Quale (Eds.) Cross-
national Policies and Practices on Information and Communication
Technology in Education. Information Age Publishing Inc.

Leaver, B. L., & Willis, J. R. (eds.) (2004). Task-based instruction in foreign

language education: Practices and programs. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
University Press.

194
Lee, J. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. Boston: McGraw
Hill.

Lee, K. (2000). English teachers barriers to the use of computer-assisted language

learning. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(12), Retrieved March 14, 2006, from
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Lee-CALLbarriers.html

Lee, N. (November, 2004). Online task-based learning: Design, process and

assessment. Paper presented at the American Council of Teaching of Foreign
Languages, Chicago, IL.

Leu, D. J., Jr., & Kinzer, C. K. (2000). The convergence of literacy instruction with
networked technologies for information and communication. Reading
Research Quarterly, 35, 112-118

Leu, D. J., Kinzer, K. K., Coire, J. L., & Commack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of
new literacies emerging from the internet and other information and
communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical
models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association

Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and

conceptualization. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.

Llurda, E. (2004). Non-native speaker teachers and English as an international

language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(3), 314-323.

Li, C. (2003). China, ICT use in Education: Policy goals and implementations. In G. |
Farrell, & C. Wachholz.(Eds.). Meta-survey on the Use of Technologies in
Education in Asia and the Pacific 2003-2004. Bankkok, Thailand: UNESCO
Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education.

Li, J. (2002). A cultural model of learning: Chinese heart and mind for wanting to
learn. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 33(3), 248-269.

195
Li, J. (2003). U.S. and Chinese cultural beliefs about learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95(2), 258-267.

Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L., & Lee, S. (2003). A look at the research on
computer-based technology use in second language learning: A review of the
literature from 1990-2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
34(3), 250-273.

Ma, F., & Hu, C. (July, 2002): Information Literacy, Education Reform and the
Economy: China as a Case Study. Retrieved March 14, 2006, from
http://www.nclis.gov/libinter/infolitconf&meet/papers/ma-fullpaper.pdf

Matsuda, A. (2003). The ownership of English in Japanese schools. World Englishes,

22(4), 483-496.

Maxwell, J. A., & Loomis, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative

approach. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods
in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McEuen, S. F. (2001). How fluent with information technology are our students?
EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 24(4), 8-17.

McKay, S. L. (2002), Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

McKay, S. L. (2003). Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: Re-examining common

ELT assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 1-22.

McNeely, B. (2005). Using technology as a learning tool, not just the cool new thing.
In D.G. Oblinger & J.L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation. (pp.
4.14-4.10).Washington, DC: Educause.

McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

196
McLuhan Associates (1986). If it works, its obsolete: Marshall McLuhanisms.
Retrieved October 17, 2005, from
http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/poster.html

Meskill, C. (2005). Metaphors that shape and guide CALL research. In J. Egbert and
G. M. Petrie (Eds.) CALL Research Perspectives (pp. 25-40). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum.

Mok, K.-H., & Welch, A. R. (2003). Globalization, structural adjustment and

educational reform. In K.-H. Mok & A. R. Welch (Eds.), Globalization and
Educational Re-Structuring in the Asia Pacific Region (pp. 1-31). London:
Palgrave.

Mori, S. (2002). Redefining Motivation to Read in a Foreign Language. Reading in a

Foreign Language, 14(2), 92-110. Retrieved March 16, 2006, from
http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/October2002/mori/mori.html

Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design.

In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social
and behavioral research (pp. 189-207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Murray, D. E. (2001). Changing technologies, changing literacy communities?

Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 43-58.

Nakamura, K. (2002). Cultivating global literacy through English as an international

language education in Japan: A new paradigm for global education.
International Education, 3(5), 64- 74.

New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.

Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92.

New Media Consortium (2005a). A global imperative: The report of the 21st century
literacy summit. Retrieved October 17, 2005, from
http://www.nmc.org/summit/

197
New Media Consortium (2000b). The 2005 Horizon Report. Stanford, CA: NMC-
National Learning Infrastructure Initiative. Retrieved October 17, 2005, from
http://www.nmc.org/horizon/index.shtml

Newman, I., Ridenour, C. S., Newman, C., & Demarco, Jr. G. M. (2003). A typology
of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In A. Tashakkori
& C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research (pp. 167-187). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L.G., Clement, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you
learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination
theory. Language Learning, 50, 57-85.

North Central Regional Education Laboratory. (2003). EnGauge 21st century skills:
Literacy in the digital age. Npaerville IL: Author. Retrieved October 17, 2005,
from http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/skills.htm

Norris, J. M. (2005, September). The essential roles of assessment, measurement, and

evaluation in task-based language teaching. Plenary address presented at the
First International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, University
of Leuven, Belgium.

Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 29(1), 9-31.

Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies

and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), p. 589-613.

Nunan, D. (2005). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Nunn, R. (2005). Competence and teaching English as an International Language.

Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 61-74.

198
Oblinger, D. (2005a). Asking the right question. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(2), 76.

Oblinger, D. (2005b). Learners, learning, & technology. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5),

67-75.

OCallaghan, J. (1996) Grounded Theory: a potential methodology Counselling

Psychology Review 11(1) pp.23-28.

Oxford, R.L. (2001). The bleached bones of a story Learners constructions of

language teachers. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language
learning: New directions in research (pp. 86-111). London: Longman.

Oxford, R. L (2001). Language learning styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia

(Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd Ed., pp. 359-
366). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Oxford, R. L. (2002). Sources of variation in language learning. In R. Kaplan (Ed.),

Ox ford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 245-252). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.

Oxford, R. (in press). Task-based language teaching and learning: An overview.

Asian EFL Journal.

Oxford, R. & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the

theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal, 78, 12-28.

Oxford, R.L., Massey, R., & Anand, S. (2005). Transforming teacher-student style
relationships. In. J. Frodesen & C. Holten (Eds.), The power of context in
language teaching and learning (pp. 249-266). Boston: Thomson Heinle.

Oxford, R. L., Tomlinson, S., Barcelos, A. Harrington, C., Lavine, R., Saleh, A., et al.
(1998) Clashing metaphors about classroom teachers: Toward a systematic
typology for the language teaching field. System, 26, 350.

199
Petzold, R. (2002). Toward a pedagogical model for ELT. World Englishes, 21(3),
422- 426.

Pang, J., Zhou, X., & Fu, Z. (2002). English for international trade: China enters the
WTO. World Englishes, 21(2), p. 201-216.

Phan Le Ha (2005). Toward a critical notion of appropriation of English as an

international language. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 30-42.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Phillipson, R., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1996). English only worldwide or language

ecology?, TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 429-52.

Pururshotma, R. (2005). Youre not studying, youre justLanguage Learning &

Technology, 9(1), 80-96.

Rajadurai, J. (2005). Revisiting the concentric circles: Conceptual and sociolinguistic

considerations. Asia EFL Journal, 7(4), 111-130.

Rahman, S. (2005). Orientations and motivation in English language learning: A

study of Bangladeshi students at undergraduate level. Asian EFL Journal, 7(1),
1-25.

Reddy, R. (2004). ICT for emerging economies. Mythology and Reality of the Digital
Divide Problem. Retrieved March, 16, 2006, from
http://www.rr.cs.cmu.edu/ITSD.ppt

Richards, C. (2000). Hypermedia, internet communication, and the challenge of

redefining literacy in the electronic age. Language Learning & Technology,
4(2), 59-77.

Rickman, J., & Grudzinski, M. (2000). Student expectations of information

technology use in the classroom. Educause Quarterly, 23(1), 24-30.

200
Rohter, L. (2004, December 29). Learn English, says Chile, thinking upwardly global.
New York Times, pp. A3.

Ross & Morrison, (2001). Getting started in instructional technology research.

Bloomington, IN: The Association for Educational Communications and
Technology. Retrieved September 11, 2005, from
http://www.aect.org/intranet/publications/Research/index.html#1-4

Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English
as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133-58.

Seidlhofer, B. (2003). A concept of international English and related issues: From

'real English' to 'realistic English'? Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Sifakis, N.C. (2004). Teaching EIL-Teaching international or intercultural English?

What teachers should know. System, 32, 237-250.

Sifakis, N. S., & Sougari, A-M. (2003). Facing the globalisation challenge in the
realm of English language teaching. Language and Education, 17(1), 59-71.

Shenkar, O. (2005). The Chinese Century: the rising Chinese Economy and its Impact
on the Global Economy, the Balance of Power, and Your Job. Philadelphia,
PA: Wharton School Publishing.

Smith, C. S. (2001). Olympics; Joyous Vindication and a Sleepless Night. (2001, July
14). The New York Times. A.3; p. 1

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Szendeffy, J (2005). Effective CALL pedagogy: Ten suggestions for teachers with
limited CALL experience. Retrieved from

201
 www.bu.edu/celop/mll/tutorials/ pdf_public/CALL_Pedagogy.pdf

Tiene, D. (2002). Addressing the global digital divide and its impact on educational
opportunity. Education Media International, 211-221.

Tinio, V. L. (2003). ICT in education. E-ASEAN task force. Manila, Philippines:

UNDP-APDIP.

Thao, V.T. (2003). The contribution of multimedia tools to EFL setting unfamiliar
with technology. Asian EFL Journal, 5(3), 1-14.

Tomlinson, B. (2005). The future for ELT materials in Asia. Electronic Journal of
Foreign Language Teaching, 2(2), 5-13.

Toporkoff, S. (2005, May). The ubiquitous network society within reach?: A

European perspective. Paper presented at the Tokyo Ubiquitous Network
Conference. Tokyo, Japan.

Quxin, H. (2001). English language education in China. In Steven Baker (ed.),

Language policy: Lessons from global models. Monterey Institute of
International Studies, Monterey: CA.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (2002).

Information and Communication Technology in Education: A curriculum for
Schools and Program of Teacher Development. Paris, France.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In S.

Fotos (Ed.) Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3-20). Tokyo, Japan: Logos
International.

Warschauer, M. (1998). New media, new literacies: Challenges for the next century.
Plenary address at the annual conference of the English Teachers Association
of Israel, Jerusalem.

202
Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online
education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Warschauer, M. (2000a). The changing global economy and the future of English
teaching, TESOL Quarterly, 34 (3), 511-535.

Warschauer, M. (2000b). The death of cyberspace and the rebirth of CALL, English
Teachers Journal, 53, 61-67.

Warschauer, M. (2001) Millennialism and media: Language, literacy, and technology

in the 21st century. AILA Review, 14, 49-59.

Warschauer, M. (2002). Reconceptualizing the digital divide. First Monday 7(7),

197-304.

Warschauer, M. (2003). Dissecting the digital divide: A case study in Egypt.

Information Society, 19, 197-304.

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In S. Fotos &
C. Brown (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second and foreign language
classrooms (pp. 15-25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Warschauer, M. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on CALL. In J. Egbert and G. M.

Petrie (Eds.) CALL research perspectives (pp. 41-51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Earlbaum.

Warschauer, M. (in press). A literacy approach to the digital divide. In M. A. Pereyra

(Ed.), Las mulialfabetizaciones en el espacio digital . Malaga, Spain:
Ediciones Aljibe.

Warschauer, M., & De Florio-Hansen, I. (2003). Multilingualism, identity, and the

Internet. In A. Hu & I. De Florio-Hansen (Eds), Multiple identity and
multilingualism (pp. 155-179). Tbingen: Stauffenburg.

203
Warschauer, M., & Meskill, C. (2000). Technology and Second Language Teaching
and Learning. In J. Rosenthal (ed) Handbook of Undergraduate Second
Language Education. (pp. 303-318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

What the Games will do (2001, July 30). Business Week, p.60W.

Wang, L. (2004). When English becomes big business. In K-K. Tam & T. Weiss.
(Eds.). English and globalization: Perspectives from Hong Kong and China.
(pp. 149167). Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.

Wang, W. (2002). Bridging the digital divide inside China. Paper presented at the
Third Asian Conference in Information Technology in Agriculture, October
26-28, 2002, Beijing, China

Weiser, M. (1991, September). The computer for the twenty-first century. Scientific
American, 94-104.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Widdowson, H.G. (1994) The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28 (2), 377
88.

Widdowson, H. G. (1997). EIL, ESL, EFL: global Issues and local Interests. World
Englishes, 16(1), 146-53.

Widdowson, H. G. (2000). On the limitations of linguistics applied. Applied

Linguistics, 21(1), 325.

Wu, Y. (2001). English Language Teaching in China: Trends and Challenges. TESOL
Quarterly, 35(1), 191-194.

204
Yang, Y-F. (2005). Situated learning as a framework for CALL research. In J. Egbert
and G. M. Petrie (Eds.) CALL research perspectives (pp. 155-168). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Yano, Y. (2001). World Englishes in 2000 and beyond. World Englishes, 20, 119-131.

Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A

literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7-27.

Zhao, Y. (2005). Research in technology and second language learning:

Developments and directions. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Zhong, Y. X., & Shen, H., Z., (2002). Where is the technology-induced pedagogy?
Snapshots from two multimedia EFL classrooms. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 33(1), 39-52.

205